recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns answers with cited sources or 'unknown', includes a signed receipt, and avoids hallucination. It also mentions the optional 'as_of' parameter for valid-time queries, covering key behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise (three sentences), with the first sentence immediately stating the core function, the second providing usage guidance, and the third adding a parameter note. No unnecessary words.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the return format (answer with source or 'unknown', receipt), usage context, and valid-time capability. It is sufficiently complete, though it could briefly clarify the role of subject and relation.

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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It only explains 'as_of' (optional for valid-time), but does not describe the required 'subject' and 'relation' parameters, leaving their meanings implicit. Users must infer that they specify the fact to be recalled.

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 purpose: to look up stored facts and return answers with cited sources or 'unknown'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing honest recall over guessing and providing verifiable receipts.

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 explicitly advises to always call this tool before answering factual or memory questions instead of guessing, and notes that it returns nothing rather than hallucinating. While it does not enumerate alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies when not to use (e.g., for learning or forgetting).

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