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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (name, short ID, Jam count, timestamps) and confirming that search and pagination are optional, which an agent needs in order to interpret results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return contents and then the use case. No filler or redundancy; the only minor inefficiency is that the return-fields sentence partially duplicates what an agent would infer from a list operation.

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, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and returned fields. The only gap is pagination mechanics — it does not say how an agent detects that more pages exist or that results are cursor-based beyond the 'after' parameter.

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%, with every parameter documented in the schema including the after-cursor, limit bounds, query, orderBy enum, and the intent/llm_model fields. The description only restates that search and pagination exist, adding no format, default, or cursor-chaining detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("List folders in the team") plus the scope of optional filtering and pagination, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with (e.g., searchJams or listJams), but the stated use case of discovering folders for organizing Jams effectively separates it from the Jam-listing tools.

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?

"Use this to discover available folders for organizing Jams" supplies a positive use context, which is more than nothing. However, it never states when not to use it or points to alternatives such as searchJams for content lookup, and there is no mention of prerequisites like team membership.

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