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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that both flags default to false and, crucially, that includeContents is not recursive despite the subfolder option. The parenthetical 'fetch each subfolder for its own contents' exposes a non-obvious behavior an agent must know before invoking.

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 carry the essential operation, flag semantics, defaults, and the nested-content caveat with no filler. The headline verb/resource appears first, and each clause 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 read-only single-folder fetch, this covers the required folderId, both optional behaviors, defaults, and the non-nested nuance. It does not describe the shape of the base folder object or not-found behavior, but with no output schema those are minor gaps for this small tool.

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 all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the default-false behavior for both booleans and explains how the two flags interact, which goes beyond the field-level schema text.

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 opens with 'Get a single folder', which names a specific verb and resource and distinguishes it from folder-list and folder-create. It also clarifies the scope of the two optional include flags, so an agent immediately knows this returns one folder, optionally with its subfolder tree or direct document IDs.

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 gives clear conditional guidance: includeSubfolders=true returns the full tree, includeContents=true only direct document IDs, and it explicitly tells the agent to fetch each subfolder when nested contents are needed. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as folder-list for retrieving multiple folders, so it is not a full 5.

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