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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds value by specifying that only 'published' memos are returned, that they are in 'publication order', and listing the exact fields. This goes beyond the annotation's safety profile, but it does not mention potential result size or pagination, which is a minor gap for a list-all tool.

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 two sentences long, with the core action and scope in the first sentence, and the alternative in the second. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description effectively explains what the tool returns (date, summary, canonical URL, related links) and the ordering. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers functionality and distinguishes from the sibling. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to explain. According to the guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't try to, so a 4 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 clearly states the verb 'List' with a specific resource ('every published memo') and provides ordering ('publication order') and the fields included ('date, summary, canonical URL and related links'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'read_memo' by explicitly directing users there for full text, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly names the alternative 'read_memo' for full text, which tells the agent when to use this tool versus that sibling. It states the purpose of this tool is to list memos with summaries and links, so an agent can decide when to call it. This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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