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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it contains no message bodies, no dates, and no content, only establishes source existence. It also points to cortex_ask for retrieval, setting accurate expectations.

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 sentences, both adding value: the first defines the tool's contents and scope, the second clarifies its non-content nature and points to cortex_ask. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (an index of sources, counts, top people/topics/projects) and explicitly lists what it excludes. For a no-parameter tool, this is complete and actionable.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate, and the description contributes no parameter information because none exist.

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 defines the tool as 'a table of contents for this user's memory' and enumerates exactly what it contains (connected sources, counts, top people/topics/projects). It explicitly contrasts with cortex_ask by noting content is retrievable there, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 it 'is an index rather than an answer' and that 'content behind any entry is retrievable with cortex_ask,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool (overview) vs cortex_ask (actual content).

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