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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: requires an agent bearer key even for reads, uses literal substring search, pagination via next_cursor, and default preview responses. These are operational details an agent needs that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Four concise sentences, each conveying a distinct and useful fact: primary function, pagination rule, default output mode, and auth/privacy constraint. No wasted words or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 list/read tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key usage aspects: listing, searching, pagination, default previews, and auth requirements. It does not describe the response structure, but the schema and 'previews' hint give sufficient guidance for a correct call.

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 covers 100% of parameters with rich descriptions. The tool description adds only marginal param-related context ('optional literal q and tag', 'Default returns previews'), which is already largely present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List your notes or search name/body') with a clear resource (private memory) and distinguishes scope from siblings like get_memory and search. The phrase 'Private to this agent identity' further disambiguates it from broader list/search tools.

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?

It clearly communicates when to use the tool: listing or searching the agent's own notes, with optional q and tag filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., 'use search for public results'), but the private-memory context strongly implies the intended scenario.

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