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

With no annotations, the description does carry some behavioral load: it discloses ordering (newest first), pagination, and a hard page cap of 20, and "connected account's" hints at an auth-scoped read. It omits what a memory record contains, the default page size, and how to detect the end of the list.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with ordering and pagination constraints appended in parentheses. No filler, no repetition.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the essentials (scope, ordering, page cap) are covered. Gaps remain around default limit, end-of-pagination detection, and returned fields, which the description must carry since nothing structured covers them.

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 50%: `before` is documented in the schema as a created_at cursor, while `limit` has no schema description. The description's "max 20" merely restates the schema's maximum and says nothing about a default page size, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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 ... memories") plus scope ("the connected account's") and ordering ("newest first"), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like get_memory_details, leaving that inference to the agent.

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: browse the current account's memories without needing an id, which distinguishes it from get_memory_details by construction. However, there is no explicit "use this when / use X instead" guidance and no mention of when a paged crawl is preferable to fetching a single memory.

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