Recall facts

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is already covered. The description adds context by specifying 'current version' and 'current records', indicating it returns latest state, not historical. It doesn't mention pagination but for a read tool with annotation, this is adequate.

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 concise sentence that covers the dual functionality without fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action 'Read' and then enumerates search criteria efficiently.

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?

Given it's a read-only tool with readOnlyHint already in annotations, the description covers key behaviors: exact key retrieval, search modes, and what is searched (scope, tag, free text, min confidence). It doesn't mention limit parameter in description, but schema covers min/max. For a tool of this complexity, it's adequately complete.

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?

Description explains key (scope+key), scope prefix, tag, free text, and minimum confidence, giving meaning to params like tag, query, scope, and min_confidence that have no schema description. Limit is not mentioned, but overall it compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: reading a specific key or searching current records. It distinguishes between exact key lookup and search modes, and differentiates from siblings like remember (write) and history (past versions).

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?

It explains the two usage modes (exact key vs search) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like history for past versions or memory_stats. There's implied guidance by showing search parameters, but no explicit exclusions.

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