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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the '(plan feature)' note (a hint at entitlement gating) and the data-model fact that a code's folder is its folderId. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or return format, so the added value beyond annotations is modest.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The parenthetical '(plan feature)' is slightly compressed and ambiguous, but overall the sizing is appropriate for a simple list tool.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description roughly covers what is returned (folders plus code counts). However it leaves the companyId parameter unexplained and gives no sense of ordering or completeness of the result set, so gaps remain.

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% for the single companyId parameter, and the description never mentions it. With one optional scoping parameter and no schema documentation, the description should compensate for the gap but does not, leaving the agent unsure how company scoping affects results.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List QR folders') plus scope detail ('with how many codes each holds'). An agent can distinguish this from folders_create/delete/rename by the listing verb. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as non-alternatives, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Listing folders is self-evidently the right call when you want an inventory, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note on when to prefer other folder tools, and no exclusions. The '(plan feature)' parenthetical hints at entitlement gating but doesn't frame usage.

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