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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: scoping to an identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID) and the two distinct operational modes (retrieve a value vs. list all keys). This enriches the agent's understanding without being verbose.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: function, use case, and scope/pairing. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every sentence contributes valuable information.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema) and informative annotations, the description fully covers what, when, why, and how it relates to other tools. It also clarifies privacy/scope. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The schema covers the single 'key' parameter fully ('Memory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys)'). The description adds semantic depth by explaining what kind of values are stored (user's target ticker, address, research notes) and linking the key to the 'remember' tool. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a value previously saved via remember') and clearly explains the second mode ('list all saved keys'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing remember and forget, and provides concrete examples of stored context.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use to look up context the agent stored earlier...') and why it is beneficial ('without re-deriving it from scratch'). It also clarifies the working relationship with sibling tools by instructing to 'Pair with remember to save, forget to delete.'

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