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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description adds one genuine piece of behavioral context — that artifact_count is a live count and is null for workspace folders — but says nothing else beyond what annotations and the output schema convey.

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?

A compact, front-loaded description whose first clause names the resource and whose remainder is essential identifier-resolution detail. The closing artifact_count aside is a slight detour given an output schema exists, but nothing is padded.

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?

A read-only, three-parameter lookup with an output schema and full schema coverage needs little more than identifier resolution rules, which are fully supplied. The main residual gap is that it never routes the agent to folder_list when a listing is actually wanted.

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 100% and the folder parameter's description is restated almost verbatim, adding no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond the schema. The workspaceId/team precedence is echoed from the schema rather than extended, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a folder's details'), which an agent can distinguish from folder_list, folder_update and folder_delete in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with folder_list (list vs. single-detail), so it is clear but not fully 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?

The description never says when to reach for this instead of folder_list, folder_share_contents, or workspace_show, and gives no prerequisites beyond identifier resolution. The 'workspaceId when given, else team, else personal' rule is input scoping, not tool-selection guidance.

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