memory-read

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the $0.001/call cost, that a wallet is required, that omitting key lists keys, that reads default to your own namespace, and that owner access requires a grant.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with cost and core behavior, then alternatives and access detail. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read-only key-value lookup tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this description is complete. It covers cost, auth, namespace scoping, list-vs-get behavior, and the correct sibling for fuzzy retrieval.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for key and owner: exact-key semantics versus similarity retrieval, and the default own-namespace behavior that the schema does not explicitly state.

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: read from a wallet-scoped namespace by exact key. It explicitly distinguishes itself from memory-recall (similarity retrieval) and memory-write (the store this reads from), so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use direction: use this for exact-key reads, use memory-recall for similarity retrieval, and use memory-write as the write counterpart. It also explains the owner parameter and when it is needed for granted namespaces.

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