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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: chronological ordering of results and a hard result cap ('limit caps the results (max 100)'), which an agent needs to reason about truncation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the period vocabulary and the limit cap in two tight sentences. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the highest-value detail (the enum list) is surfaced inline.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: scope, ordering, period vocabulary, project filter and result cap. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema defines no enums, so the description carries the full burden. It enumerates all valid `period` values (today | yesterday | this_week | last_week | 7d | 30d | month | year), states the limit ceiling, and explains project as an optional single-project filter — only the project identifier format (name vs. id) is left unspecified.

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 ('Lists the memories saved during a period') plus the ordering ('in date order') and an optional scope ('for one project'). This distinguishes it implicitly from relevance-based siblings like memory_search, but it never names memory_list or memory_search to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 implied by the date-period framing and the 'optionally for one project' filter, so an agent can infer this is the browse-by-time tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to alternatives such as memory_search or memory_list for other access patterns.

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