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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it includes shared workspace folders, returns deck counts, and requires a Cotlet API key with access. It doesn't cover pagination or rate limits, but for a simple list this is adequate.

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?

Front-loaded and efficient, with the core purpose stated first. There is minor redundancy between 'with the number of decks in each' and 'with deck counts', which prevents a perfect score.

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 simple read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers return shape (folder names with deck counts), scope (shared workspace folders), auth needs, and how the output is used. Pagination or sorting details are absent but likely not critical here.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because there are none to describe.

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'), and scopes it to include shared workspace folders. It also distinguishes itself by naming the sibling tools that consume its output (list_presentations, move_to_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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use the folder name as the 'folder' parameter of list_presentations and move_to_folder, giving clear next-step context. It doesn't state when not to use the tool, but there is no obvious alternative folder-listing tool among siblings.

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