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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the $0.05 cost, the API-key requirement, and the stability of returned identifiers. It does not cover pagination behavior, which limits it below a 5.

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 tight sentences. The filtering capability is front-loaded, then the returned identity fields, then the cost/auth constraint in parentheses. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety annotations are covered. However, for a 9-parameter list tool with 0 required params and no usage guidance, the description should say something about pagination (limit/offset) and how it differs from search_moments.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names date, title, type, tag, person and place filters, covering six of the nine parameters. The limit/offset pagination parameters are not addressed in either place, which is the remaining gap.

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 verb (List) and resource (Moments) and enumerates the filterable dimensions (date, title, type, tag, person, place), which maps directly onto the schema. It scopes to 'owned' Moments, hinting at a boundary, but never names the closest sibling search_moments to differentiate itself.

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?

No statement of when to use this instead of search_moments, get_memories, or notable_search, all of which sit in the same sibling cluster. The word 'owned' is the only scoping signal, and it is never explained or contrasted with alternatives.

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