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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the interop contract: the returned ids are the folder_id values accepted by list_meetings and search_meetings. It doesn't mention scale, ordering, or hierarchy, which keeps it out of the top band.

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, both earning their place: the first defines what comes back and how it is consumed, the second gives the call-ordering rule with examples. The routing instruction is front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and the description covers purpose, consumption of the ids, and when to call. Minor gaps remain around whether folders are nested or how results are ordered/paginated, but nothing that would cause a wrong invocation.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately spends no words on parameters and instead explains the meaning of the values it returns.

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 the exact resource returned (the folders the user files meetings into) and its key payload (the ids that list_meetings/search_meetings take as folder_id). An agent can distinguish this from every sibling without opening the schema, since no other tool deals with folders.

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?

'Call this first when the user names a folder' is an explicit trigger condition, reinforced by concrete example utterances ("my 1:1s", "team meetings"). It also names the downstream tools that consume the returned folder_id, so the sequencing is unambiguous.

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