Recall facts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered by confidence then recency, which the annotations cannot convey. It does not mention truncation behavior when hits exceed the limit, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result ordering, with no filler. The sibling reference is placed last where it functions as a routing hint.

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 simple zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and full annotation coverage, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it. With no output schema, a brief note on what a returned entry contains would have closed the last gap.

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 100%, so substring semantics, the category slug, and the default of 10 are already documented per parameter. The description restates 'substring search plus optional category filter' without adding format or matching details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read the memory log') plus the retrieval semantics (substring search, optional category filter, confidence-then-recency ordering). It explicitly names the sibling it pairs with, femboy_remember_fact, so an agent can distinguish read from write without opening a schema.

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 'read-only counterpart of femboy_remember_fact' clause gives clear context for when this tool applies versus the write sibling. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. how it differs from femboy_changes_since or femboy_progress, which also surface stored state.

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