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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no retry behavior, pagination, auth requirements, or response shape — and repeats the endpoint path twice.

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 single informational sentence is duplicated verbatim ('GET /api/document-folders. GET /api/document-folders.'), which is pure waste. The operation ID and schema pointer are crammed into the same run-on sentence rather than front-loaded logically.

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 tool with a nested, fully undocumented parameter object and no output schema, the description should explain at minimum what the query/params objects accept and what the response contains. It does neither, leaving the agent dependent on a separate describe_operation call.

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%, and both parameters ('query', 'params') are opaque free-form objects with no properties. The description offers no parameter meaning at all, only deferring to describe_operation, which forces an extra round trip before any call can be constructed.

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 states a verb and resource (GET /api/document-folders), so the agent can infer it lists document folders. But the same sentence is repeated verbatim, there is no explanation of what a document folder is in this domain, and nothing distinguishes it from the hundreds of other GET endpoints in the sibling list.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only guidance is a pointer to describe_operation for native request schemas, which is a hint about a companion tool but not about when to select this endpoint.

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