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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, and 'with its pages' discloses that the response includes page content. It does not explain whether pages are full objects or summaries, nor what happens on a missing folder ID, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 one short sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter retrieval tool this is close to sufficient: it names the input and the expected result composition. However, with no output schema and no sibling-routing hints, an agent still lacks the exact response shape and alternatives, leaving clear but minor gaps.

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?

The schema already documents folder_id fully as a required UUID with 100% description coverage. The description only echoes 'by ID' and adds no extra meaning about the parameter's format, source, or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('folder'), and adds the distinguishing lookup mechanism ('by ID') and the result content ('with its pages'). This lets an agent separate it from path-based lookup tools like find_folder_by_path and page-level tools like get_page.

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 when to use the tool: when the caller already has a folder ID and wants the folder along with its pages. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling tools such as list_folders, get_page_tree, or find_folder_by_path, and it offers no exclusions.

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