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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that this is a fixed GET (read), that company must be passed explicitly, and that query fields must be flat. It omits pagination behavior, rate limits, and any result-set characteristics beyond the output schema.

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?

Three short, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the endpoint and the required-company constraint come first. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than wasteful.

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 values need not be described, and for a simple read-only list tool the gaps are modest. But the filter story is entirely delegated to a sibling tool, and paging/sorting behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% and the query parameter is an untyped additionalProperties object, so the description's 'flat query fields' plus the pointer to describe_nextesy_operation does add real structural meaning. It still gives no examples of filter keys, formats, or what 'explicit company' means in practice (no defaulting vs. validation).

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 endpoint path ('GET /api/v1/documents/folders') plus the name make it inferable that this retrieves document folders, but the description never states the verb or what is returned in plain language. It is distinguishable from list_documents only because of the 'folders' path segment, not because the text contrasts them.

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?

'Explicit company required' implies a precondition, and 'see describe_nextesy_operation for filters' routes the agent to a helper for filter discovery. However, it never states when to use this versus list_documents or get_document, nor any exclusions.

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