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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that: return shape (id, name, parent_id, position, created_at), null semantics for top-level folders, and a hard nesting limit of 5 levels. The one meaningful gap is that it never says whether the result set is paginated or capped for large workspaces.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: purpose and ordering first, then return fields and the nesting constraint, then the usage routing. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and their null semantics, and gives an agent enough to call it correctly with the single required param. Missing only scale/pagination behavior, which matters for a listing tool in a workspace that could hold many folders.

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 workspace_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (including 'Get it from list_workspaces'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate — the schema does all the work here.

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 verb and resource ('Lists folders in a workspace') plus the ordering ('alphabetically by name'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_workspaces and list_concepts. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for this tool: to resolve a folder_id before create_folder (as parent), update_folder (reparent), delete_folder, or move_video_to_folder. All four named siblings actually exist in the sibling list, so the routing advice is actionable rather than decorative.

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