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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the sort order (most-recently-updated first) and that results are cursor-paginated, though it says nothing about what happens on an invalid cursor or empty results.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the resource and scope come first, then ordering, then pagination. Every clause carries 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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (keys and values), the ordering, and the pagination model, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of clarifying its relationship to 'recall', the one ambiguity that matters here.

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 100%, so both 'limit' and 'cursor' are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Cursor-paginated' phrasing only echoes the cursor parameter without adding format or range detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List your stored memories') and adds scope detail ('keys and values') plus ordering ('most-recently-updated first'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'recall', which also retrieves stored memories, so the agent must infer 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The description implies this is for enumerating memories as opposed to 'recall' or 'remember', but it never says when to prefer this over 'recall' for fetching content, nor does it mention any prerequisites.

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