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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context (folders group projects) but no additional behavioral details like pagination, sorting, or return format. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 short sentences that front-load the action. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second adds a useful distinction. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, single optional parameter, read-only annotations, and existing output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs. It explains the resource and provides an alternative for related data, making it complete for this simple listing operation.

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 only parameter (limit) is fully described in the schema with a default value and explanation, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, 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?

Description starts with a clear verb and resource: "Lists folders in OmniFocus." It further explains the purpose of folders (group related projects) and distinguishes this tool from the sibling list_omnifocus_projects by directing the user there for project-level detail.

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 explicitly says to "Use list_omnifocus_projects to see the projects inside them," giving a direct alternative when to use a sibling tool. This provides clear when-to-use guidance beyond a bare statement of functionality.

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