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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful scoping with 'for the account' and 'all', but does not describe return format or pagination; this is acceptable for a simple list tool but is not rich behavioral context.

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 description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter read-only list operation with an output schema present, the description is complete. It states the resource, the scope, and that all folders are returned.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to document. The word 'all' clarifies that no filtering parameter exists and that the entire account folder collection is returned.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and a specific resource, 'all client folders for the account', so the operation is unambiguous. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling list_media_folders and from create_folder/update_folder/delete_folder.

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 phrase 'for the account' gives clear context that this is the account-scoped listing of client folders. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but 'client folders' is enough to separate this from similar sibling tools like list_media_folders, and no exclusions or prerequisites are relevant.

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