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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: results come back in date order, the accepted period vocabulary, and a hard cap of 100 results — the cap in particular is a behavioral constraint an agent cannot infer from the schema's default of 30.

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?

One front-loaded sentence establishes purpose, ordering, and scoping; a second compact clause documents the parameters inline. Every phrase carries information and nothing is padded.

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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and rich read-only annotations, the definition covers the minimum an agent needs to invoke it. It stops short of describing result shape beyond ordering, pagination/truncation behavior when hits exceed the 100 cap, or how an empty period is reported.

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 description carries the full parameter burden and only partly succeeds. It enumerates the eight accepted `period` values and states the `limit` maximum, which is valuable missing-from-schema detail, but `project` is described only as 'optionally for one project' with no hint of whether it takes an id, slug, or name, and the interplay of period vs limit is unstated.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Lists the memories saved during a period, in date order' — plus an optional scoping dimension ('optionally for one project'). That is enough for an agent to distinguish a chronological browse from a query-driven search, but it never names a sibling (e.g. memory_search or memory_list) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'during a period' signals temporal browsing rather than keyword search, and 'optionally for one project' hints at scoping. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over memory_search or memory_list, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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