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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations by explaining that monitoring memories are included by default and why: an injury the pipeline is still suppressing on should never be hidden. This clarifies the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 long and front-loaded with the core action and filtering intent. The middle sentence about monitoring is slightly long but earns its place by explaining an otherwise ambiguous status value. No sentence is wasted.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the default behavior, the effect of the status and category parameters, and the key filtering scenarios. The existing annotations cover safety and the output schema covers return structure, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It adds real meaning for status, explaining the default and giving an example, and for category, giving an example filter. The limit parameter is not explained, but it is self-explanatory and the schema already constrains it as a number.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's memories filtered by category and status.' It also clarifies the default scope (all memories that gate training, including both active and monitoring), which distinguishes it from singular tools like get_memory and from status-changing tools like update_memory_status.

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 and practical usage guidance: it explains the default behavior, tells the agent to pass an explicit status to narrow results, and gives a concrete example with status='resolved' and category='injury'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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