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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that sources are rechecked live (freshness guarantee for an openWorldHint tool), that retrieval is bounded keyword matching rather than vector search, and that a pre-provisioned MLAIEL bearer scope read_public with custom non-OAuth auth is required. That auth pre-requisite is operationally important and is not encoded in any structured field.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then behavior, then the auth gate — the order an agent needs. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Strong on auth, freshness, and retrieval mode for a read-only list tool with no output schema. However, the presence of a cursor parameter means pagination behavior matters, and the description is silent on whether results are paged or how to continue — a real gap for a caller iterating over memories.

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 schema gives parameter names and types but no semantics. The description partially compensates by clarifying that retrieval is keyword-based (implying how q behaves) and 'bounded' (implying the limit cap), but never explains what q matches, how limit interacts with the maximum of 25, or how cursor pagination works.

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 and resource: 'List your public-source memory references,' with a scope qualifier ('public-source') that separates it from mutation siblings like remember_public_source or delete_own_memory. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from (e.g., get_own_memory for a single item), so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named; 'bounded keyword retrieval, not vector search' describes retrieval mechanics, not tool selection. An agent must guess whether to call this or get_own_memory / list_own_tasks for a given request.

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