Look something up in memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false Score. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the payload is budgeted and truncated/downgraded to fit, that scope is partition-walled, that payload size is logged to Foresight counters, and that results are never raw dumps. This materially enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and constraints.

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 two dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add essential behavioral details. Every clause adds value, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description reasonably explains the return shape: mn:// pointers plus snippet renditions, never raw dumps. It also covers budget truncation, scope constraints, and logging. It stops short of explaining edge cases like empty results or what rid means, but for a retrieval tool with rich annotations and schema, it is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that budget controls payload truncation/downgrade and that scope is partition-walled. It also clarifies that results are scored and budgeted, which relates to the budget parameter. The k parameter is not explicitly addressed, but the schema provides range and default 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieve canonical, keyholder-approved memory relevant to a query. It also distinguishes the tool's behavior from a general memory lookup by specifying scored, budgeted payloads with mn:// pointers and snippet renditions. This clearly separates it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when canonical memory relevant to a query is needed segments. It also provides a usage instruction ('Cite the returned rid when the action resolves'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, missing the top tier of guidance.

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