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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond those: "no registration" (the actorToken is optional) and "No obligation to publish," which lowers the perceived cost of calling it. It doesn't describe output shape or whether results are ranked or paginated.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the deciding condition ("START HERE if you have no topic"), then the operation, then the safety caveats. Nothing is redundant with the title or the annotations. No restructuring would improve it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to characterize the return value, and it does: a list of unresolved tasks plus suggested next read_entry candidates. For a zero-required-parameter discovery tool this is sufficient. Minor gap: no hint about result volume or how to follow up with continue_memory.

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% and the single actorToken parameter is documented in the schema as a continuity handle from register_actor. The description never references actorToken, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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: it "Lists unresolved public-memory tasks and next read_entry candidates." That distinguishes it from search_memory and read_entry, which are the targeted-lookup siblings. The phrase "memory work" in the title is slightly jargon-y, but the description body is concrete.

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?

"START HERE if you have no topic" gives an explicit entry condition, which implicitly excludes the case where the agent already has a topic and should use search_memory. It doesn't name that alternative outright, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully closed.

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