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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds filter context but does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination semantics, result ordering, or open-world result characteristics. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It states the core action first and the filtering capability second, making it easy to scan.

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 list operation with read-only/open-world annotations, the description is minimally viable: it covers purpose and filters. However, there is no output schema and no mention of pagination parameters (limit, cursor), so an agent may not know how results are paged or what defaults apply.

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 description paraphrases the two documented filters (account and name) which map to accountId and query, adding marginal natural-language value. However, limit and cursor are not explained anywhere, and with 50% schema description coverage the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Klasörleri listeler' (lists folders) and that results can be filtered by account and name. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_folder, create_folder, and delete_folder by the listing action and filter scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool to list folders and optionally filter by account or name. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_folder or list_workspaces, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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