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

Even though annotations already mark readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context: only confirmed records appear, expired records are included and flagged as reclaimable, only fingerprints and metadata are returned, and results are cached for about a minute. These are operational facts that the annotations alone cannot convey.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed immediately by a concrete usage scenario and then operational caveats. Every clause earns its place: auth behavior, freshness, expiry semantics, content location, and caching delay are all relevant and non-redundant.

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?

With an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description fills the remaining gaps: how authentication works, what is visible, how expired records behave, where content lives, and why recent writes may be invisible. Pagination is already documented in the schema via next_offset, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats 'omit github_id to list your own' which the schema already says, and its other details like newest-first ordering and hashes relate to output behavior rather than parameter meaning. It adds little parameter-level value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every record under one GitHub id', then enumerates the identity record and all memories, sorting order, and returned fields. It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling read_record, which needs full names and hashes, making this tool's role as the hash source unmistakable.

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 gives a concrete use case: an agent starting a fresh session uses this tool to find what it anchored before, and read_record is named as the follow-on that consumes these hashes. It also provides auth usage rules: no sign-in needed to list any id, and omit github_id to list your own when signed in. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it versus store_memory or register_identity, but the context is clear.

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