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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: case-insensitive substring filtering, pagination semantics with hasMore/nextOffset, response contents (title, entryId, idMap), and the instruction to use entryId verbatim. This goes beyond what annotations convey and clarifies the tool's operation without contradicting them.

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 description is dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, filter semantics, alternative tool, pagination behavior, response shape, and entryId usage. It is a single coherent paragraph with no filler or repetition, making it highly informative yet concise.

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?

Given the tool's five parameters, output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, how filters work, how pagination works, what the response contains, and how to use identifiers. It is fully self-contained and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter meaning: it specifies that title is a case-insensitive substring on title only, gives examples for type, explains limit default and maximum behavior, and details offset/nextOffset pagination semantics. This adds genuine value beyond the raw 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 'List mnemon (lore/memory) entries for an Argo campaign,' a specific verb plus resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from search_mnemons by explicitly stating that search_mnemons is for finding entries by content, while this tool lists entries with optional filters.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for listing mnemon entries with optional title/type filters, and explicitly directs users to search_mnemons for content-based lookup. It also explains pagination usage ('when hasMore is true, call again with offset = the returned nextOffset') and entryId handling, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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