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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond them: results are titles/folders only, the workspace must be authorized, and expected_revision supports paging consistency. It says nothing about page size defaults, ordering, or what happens on a stale revision, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its scope, then the routing and paging hints. Telegraphic phrasing ("Supply season_id for a Series season.") is efficient, though a couple of fragments read as clipped rather than polished.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is correctly omitted, and the read-alternative is covered. However, for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving pagination (offset/folders_offset) and request_key undocumented makes the definition under-complete for correct invocation.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially discharges it. It explains season_id and expected_revision (the two least self-evident ones) plus the workspace scoping, but leaves limit, offset, folders_offset, and request_key entirely undefined.

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?

"List saved document titles and folders in an authorized Film, Series or GenAds home" names a specific verb, resource, and scope, and explicitly limits the payload to titles/folders rather than document bodies. It distinguishes itself from the read path by naming it, though it does not disambiguate against the many other list-style siblings in the catalog.

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?

It states the browse use case and routes the agent to the alternative ("Read a document separately for its complete current body and edit revision") when full content is needed. It also gives the conditional rule "Supply season_id for a Series season." What it lacks is an explicit when-not or any note about which home types it refuses.

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