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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what the returned entries contain. It only repeats that access is 'via product API', which adds little beyond the tool name.

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 short sentence with no filler and the resource and scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true concision.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain authentication mode selection, the meaning of the scope enum, and roughly what a listing returns. None of that is present, so an agent lacks enough to call this correctly beyond the required environmentId.

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%; apiKey and sessionToken are documented in the schema, but the required environmentId and the scope enum (environment/agent/session) have no descriptions. The description's 'for an environment' hints at environmentId but leaves the important scope semantics completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('memory entries') scoped to an environment via the product API, so an agent can tell it apart from mutating siblings like veya_store_memory or veya_invalidate_memory. It does not explicitly contrast with veya_read_memory, however, leaving the list-vs-single-read distinction to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as veya_read_memory, veya_list_executions, or veya_list_agents, and no guidance on choosing between apiKey and sessionToken despite the schema hinting that sessionToken is listing-only. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'for an environment'.

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