memory.retrieve

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

The annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: a 0.01 USDC micro-transaction is required. However, it does not clarify the payment flow, whether paymentHash must be supplied, or what happens if payment is missing.

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 short sentences with the key resource and cost front-loaded. There is no wasted language.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a paid retrieval tool, the description leaves the payment mechanics unclear, especially because paymentHash is not required in the schema despite the description saying a micro-transaction is required.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond noting the payment cost, which is consistent with the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 a specific verb and resource: retrieving stored context or data from an agent memory bank. It distinguishes itself from memory.store by using 'retrieve', though it does not explicitly name or compare against that sibling.

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 states the tool's purpose and cost but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as memory.store or other retrieval tools. There are no usage conditions or exclusions.

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