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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds real behavioral detail: return ordering, lack of query filtering, namespace default, and pagination via next_cursor/has_more. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to predict how the call behaves.

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 tightly-scoped sentences with the core operation front-loaded and code-formatted field names. There is no filler, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 operation with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is listed, sort order, namespace semantics, pagination, and return shape. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clearly explains namespace (selects collection, defaults to shared) and cursor/pagination, though it does not explicitly describe the limit parameter or spell out that next_cursor should be passed as cursor.

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 a specific operation ('List stored memories'), a concrete ordering ('newest-first'), and an explicit scope boundary ('no search query'). This immediately distinguishes the tool from search/retrieval siblings such as recall and get_memory.

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?

It gives clear usage context: this is a browse-all listing rather than a search, and it explains namespace selection and pagination workflow. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool for search or state when not to use list_memories, so it stops short of a 5.

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