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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the exact per-folder fields returned and the fact that plan-level folder limits, personal folder count, and create-folder capability flags are also included. No output schema exists, so this disclosure carries real weight.

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 sentences, no filler, with the action and scope front-loaded before the return-value details. Every clause earns its place by describing either the operation or its output.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (id, name, team_id, flow_count) plus plan limits and capability flags, which is close to what an agent needs. It does not state pagination or sorting behavior, a minor remaining gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no argument semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input schema.

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 (List) and resource (folders) plus scope (the signed-in user's folders). The scope clause distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_flows, list_organizations, and list_teams, which target other resources.

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 scope (signed-in user's folders) implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like list_flows or create_folder. Adequate but leaves inference to the agent.

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