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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, disclosing union matching, intersection behavior, updated_at ordering, lean result format, and compact text-line rendering rules. These behavioral details materially change how an agent should interpret results and are not available elsewhere.

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 dense and mostly front-loaded with the core behavior. It contains several necessary output-format details, though the phrase 'the existing behaviour is unchanged' is vague and the rendering rules could have been tightened. No sentence is purely filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return format and directs the agent to recall for full content. It is complete enough for the main use case, but unexplained limit and domain parameters leave moderate ambiguity in a six-parameter tool.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It does explain tags, node_kind, memory_id, and group_by_domain semantics thoroughly, but it leaves limit and domain without explicit meaning. This is a real gap, but the description still adds substantial value for most parameters.

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: 'Return recently modified memories', and adds an optional grouping dimension. It clearly differentiates itself from recall by stating 'call recall(id) for full content', so an agent can distinguish listing recent memories from retrieving a full memory.

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 conditional guidance for tags, node_kind, memory_id, and their interaction, and explicitly routes to recall for full content. It does not explicitly contrast with search or history, but the tool's purpose and alternatives are clear enough for correct selection.

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