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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints; the description adds the OAuth 2.1 user token requirement and that results include workspace association. It doesn't contradict annotations, though it could go slightly deeper on edge cases like empty or shared-folder visibility.

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 tight and front-loaded, with the core purpose first and supporting usage context after. 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotation, but the note about no folder-creation tool and the OAuth requirement adds meaningful value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, why an agent should call it, the auth prerequisite, and the explicit absence of a folder-creation counterpart. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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, so the schema is fully covered and no parameter details are needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than inventing parameter semantics.

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 specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('folders'), and the scope ('signed-in person's account'), while also noting the result includes each folder's workspace. It explicitly ties the tool to move_to_folder, which differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_workspaces.

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?

It tells the agent exactly when to use this tool: to find the folder_id that move_to_folder needs. It also clarifies that no folder-creation tool exists and states the OAuth 2.1 user access token requirement, giving clear selection and prerequisite guidance.

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