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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns only one level of folders and direct (non-recursive) asset counts. This clarifies scope and return semantics 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose and key scoping behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential scope and return value, and the output schema and annotations fill remaining gaps (pagination, safety). No critical missing details for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters; 'bounded level' implicitly relates to parentFolderId but does not explain parameter syntax or behavior beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('media-library folders') and scopes the action ('one bounded level', 'direct asset counts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like media_folders_create (create) and media_list (likely asset-level listing).

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 implies usage context by noting 'one bounded level' (i.e., not recursive), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The parentFolderId parameter further hints at hierarchy traversal, but no explicit guidance is given.

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