recall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares 'Credits: 0, read-only' and lists the tier and platform-flag prerequisites. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to know before calling. It stops short of describing pagination or result shape, but an output schema exists so that gap is minor.

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?

Two compact sentences with prerequisites and empty-query behavior front-loaded and nothing wasted. The only friction is the awkward 'visibly chat' phrasing, but the structure is efficient and appropriately sized for a zero-cost read tool.

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?

For a three-param read tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose, cost, safety, and prerequisites. It is nearly complete, missing only limit semantics and any pagination note, which is acceptable given the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains query behavior ('Empty query lists recent facts') and project_id scoping ('plus project facts if project_id'), covering two of three parameters meaningfully. The 'limit' parameter is left completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (recall) and resource (facts the account remembered), and clarifies scope with 'account facts, plus project facts if project_id.' The phrasing 'in the visibly chat' is slightly odd but the purpose is understandable. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'remember' tool, but the verb+resource is clear enough to distinguish.

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?

Provides useful conditional guidance ('Empty query lists recent facts') and prerequisites ('Requires tier Pro and CUSTOMER_MEMORY_ENABLED'). However, it never names or contrasts against the obvious alternative 'remember', and gives no explicit when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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