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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context — that results include Recently deleted contents and per-folder counts, subfolders, unseen changes and ownership — but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or what happens with a very large account.

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 resource is front-loaded and every clause describes an actual returned field, so little is wasted. The single semicolon-chained sentence packing a long field list plus a conditional mode is dense and slightly hard to scan, but not padded.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly for a one-parameter read tool. The remaining gap is operational (pagination, limits, error cases), which is minor given the annotations cover the safety semantics.

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% and the single parameter's schema text already states that each folder reports whether it holds the given entity, so the description's phrasing of the same effect is essentially duplicative. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds no new syntax or format guidance for record_id.

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 names the exact resource (the account's Corridome folders) and enumerates the per-folder fields returned, so an agent knows this is a bulk folder listing rather than a single-folder read like get_folder. It never actually uses a verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', relying on the title and noun phrase to convey the action, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the sentence about record_id hints that the tool can be used to find which folders contain a given entity, but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement and no comparison to siblings such as get_folder, search, or the list_* tools. An agent must infer the selection criteria from context.

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