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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' conveys that this is a read-only operation and 'in this org' sets the scope, but nothing is mentioned about ordering, pagination behavior, or any side effects. These are minor for a simple list tool, but the description adds little beyond what the name and schema already imply.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb, resource, and scope come first, and the parenthetical about agent references earns its place by clarifying why the list matters. Nothing extraneous is present.

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 simple, read-only list tool with no required parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is being listed and in which org. It does not explain the runtime filter or result ordering, but the schema already documents runtime and the output schema covers return structure, so the gaps are minor.

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 only 33% (runtime is described as 'harness or cloud'), and the description provides zero parameter guidance. Limit and offset are left to their self-evident names and defaults; since coverage is below 50%, the description should have compensated, but it does not. The agent must infer the pagination filter semantics from the schema alone.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List'), an explicit resource ('Agent ontology memories'), and a scope ('in this org'), while adding the functional note that other agents can reference them. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_agent_get (single fetch) and memory_agent_set (write).

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 context is clear: use this to get a directory of Agent ontology memories for the current org, especially when you need identifiers other agents can reference. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives, but the listing semantics and org scope are sufficient for an agent to select it over the single-entity siblings.

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