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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'structured query', such as default ordering or whether it is exact-match only; it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or duplicated schema content; 'filters and ordering' gives a compact summary of the tool's behavior.

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 a rich input schema, an output schema, and complete annotations, the definition is usable for invoking the tool, but it doesn't provide enough high-level context to choose among memory.query, memory.filter, memory.list, and memory.search, and the 'ordering' claim is left unexplained.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents each filter, default, and timestamp format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and even mentions 'ordering' without exposing an ordering parameter, but with full schema coverage the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a clear operation (structured query) and resource (memories), and notes it supports filters and ordering. However, it doesn't distinguish memory.query from sibling tools like memory.filter, memory.list, or memory.search, which also operate over memories.

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?

No guidance is given in the tool description about when to use this tool versus the many sibling memory tools; the only useful routing hint (use memory.search for ranked full-text retrieval) appears inside the query parameter's schema description rather than in the main description.

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