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

Discloses important behaviors: export limit, ordering, included field (superseded_by), and cost ($0.01 via x402). No annotations exist, so description fully carries the burden and does so excellently.

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 concise sentences convey maximum information without redundancy. Each sentence serves a purpose: first states core function and constraints, second adds details on data ownership, history inclusion, and cost.

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?

Covers all essential aspects for a simple export tool: purpose, parameters, behavior, cost. However, with no output schema, the description could briefly mention the export format (e.g., JSON array) for fuller completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context to the single parameter offset by explaining its purpose for paging past 1000 rows, augmenting the schema description. Schema coverage is 100% but description enhances usability.

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?

Clearly states 'Export memories' with specific scope (payer-wallet namespace) and includes key details like limit of 1000 per call, newest first ordering, and paging. Distinct from sibling tools like memory_search which is for searching.

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?

Provides clear guidance on using offset for paging when namespace exceeds 1000. However, lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like memory_search or memory_import for alternative use cases.

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