recall

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

Explicitly states side effects (none, read-only), auth requirements (X-Tenant-ID header, FACT_READ permission), rate limiting, and error types (VALIDATION_ERROR). Annotations absent, so description fully compensates.

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?

Description is concise (7 sentences), front-loaded with key phrase, and logically structured. Minor redundancy in error statement but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema, yet description only vaguely says 'returns facts' without format, pagination, or empty result behavior. Needs more detail for full completeness given sibling complexity.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond schema descriptions; it only provides high-level context.

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?

Description clearly defines tool as a 'time-travel query' for recalling past facts, with verb and resource explicitly stated. Distinguishes from siblings like 'ask' by temporal focus.

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?

Specifies it is 'useful for debugging agent behavior or reconstructing past state', providing context. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implication is clear.

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