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

The read-only annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful access-control context by noting private notes are readable by their author and service administration, but it does not disclose behavior around the 'before' parameter, ordering, or return shape.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the privacy caveat placed second. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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?

For a list/retrieval tool with no output schema, this is serviceable but incomplete: an agent can make a basic call, but cannot know what 'before' controls or what the response looks like. The read-only annotation and privacy note help, but key invocation details and result semantics are left to inference.

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 coverage is only 25%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It mentions the scope dimension and the memory/instruction kinds, but 'before' remains unexplained, and no added semantics are given for 'key' beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the action (discover/retrieve), the resource (memories, instructions, notes), and the shared-vs-mine distinction. It is more specific than a tautology, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like read_memory, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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?

The description gives a clear use case: discover shared memories/instructions or retrieve one's own notes with scope=mine. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as read_memory, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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