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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for additional behavioral context is lower. The description adds useful context about workspace scope and the special role of the `marketing` folder, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by practical usage guidance and a useful special-case note about the marketing folder.

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 only one optional parameter and robust annotations, the description covers the essential return fields, how to interpret them, and how to use them with related tools. The special note about the website workspace adds important context that is not available from the schema or annotations.

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%, so the optional `workspace_id` parameter is already well documented. The description echoes the workspace concept but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool lists folders in the workspace, including their ids, names, parent folder, and drive space. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of `space: 'personal' or 'shared'` helps distinguish it from site-listing tools.

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 explains how to use the returned `folder_id` with `move_site_to_folder` or `publish_site`, and contrasts this with a site's own `folder_id` from `get_site`/`list_sites`. It gives clear context but does not explicitly name when not to use this tool versus a sibling.

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