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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is content semantics: topics include built-ins plus org-defined ones, can be disabled (enabled=false), and carry a `teams` scoping field. That is useful context beyond the annotations, though some of it overlaps the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the use case, followed by only the field semantics an agent needs to interpret the result. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 full annotation coverage, an output schema, and zero parameters, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: why the tool exists, what the list contains, and how to read the disabled/team-scoped fields. Nothing material is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description correctly spends no space on argument semantics. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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?

States a specific resource (the organization's sensitive topics) and its purpose (the valid values for search_memories' `topics` filter), naming the built-in categories HR, Legal, Executive, Finance plus org-added ones. This separates it clearly from siblings like list_teams and search_memories.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger phrase ('Use this when you need...') and ties the tool to a concrete downstream need: populating the `topics` filter on search_memories. It does not state when-not to use it or contrast against list_teams, which is left to inference.

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