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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new operational detail: chunked returns of up to 100,000 characters, the termination signal ("last": true), record ordering, and the account-scoping restriction. That is exactly the kind of mechanics an agent needs to drive a paginated export correctly.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by how to page through it. Every clause carries information: format, ordering, chunk size, loop condition, and scope.

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, but the description discloses the return format (Markdown), ordering, chunk size, and the stop condition, so an agent can consume the results without guessing. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing material is missing.

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 100% and the single `part` parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the iteration protocol around that parameter and how the agent knows it is finished, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 resource (the complete verbatim memory of the account), an ordering (oldest first), a format (Markdown), and a purpose (keep a copy or move it elsewhere). The 'complete verbatim' scoping implicitly separates it from siblings like memory_recent, memory_search, and memory_about without the agent needing to open another schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('to keep a copy or move it elsewhere') and an explicit invocation procedure for pagination: call part 1, then 2, 3… until "last": true. It does not name a sibling alternative or state a when-not condition, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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