Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'durable' and 'auditable trust status', which imply persistence and provenance tracking, but it doesn't disclose details like whether the memory is immediately visible, how conflicts are handled, or what the output schema contains. It adds some context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('store a durable memory') and adds two meaningful qualifiers. It earns its place without redundancy, though it could have added a bit more practical guidance without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 parameters, an output schema, and no explicit usage guidance, the description is adequate but not complete. The output schema likely explains return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, but the description doesn't clarify when to use this tool versus 'forget' or 'validate_memory', nor does it explain the provenance/trust model that the description promises. It's a minimum-viable definition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds the concept of 'provenance' and 'auditable trust status', which loosely maps to source, source_id, source_hash, source_revision, and confidence, but it doesn't explicitly explain how those parameters relate to the described behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('store') and resource ('durable memory') and adds two distinguishing attributes: provenance and auditable trust status. It is clear enough to differentiate from siblings like 'search' and 'forget', though it doesn't explicitly name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the tool for persisting memories, and sibling names like 'search' and 'forget' suggest alternatives, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer usage from the verb and resource, but the description doesn't state conditions for choosing this over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.