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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already declared, the description still adds pagination behavior and, importantly, the full response envelope ({items, nextCursor, hasMore}) in the absence of an output schema. 'Read-only' is redundant with annotations, but the pagination and return-shape disclosure is genuine added context.

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?

One tight paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and pagination, then prerequisite, return shape, and next-steps. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is filler.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the response shape, paging contract, prerequisite, and adjacent tools, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 67%; limit and cursor are already self-documented, but workspaceId has no schema description, and the description supplies its provenance ('call workspace_list for workspaceId'). That fills the gap rather than merely restating the 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 and resource ('List folders in a workspace') plus a scoping qualifier (paginated), which cleanly separates it from workspace_list, workspaceFolder_create, and workspaceFolder_update in the sibling set.

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 names the prerequisite ('call workspace_list for workspaceId') and routes the agent forward to three concrete alternatives with the conditions that select each (add a subfolder, rename/move, drill in with folderId). Both when-to-use and what-comes-next are stated.

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