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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it reads the workspace's Google credential and requires storage:manage, which tells the agent about an auth/permission dependency it could otherwise miss.

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 with no padding and the scope (current selection + writable folders) front-loaded. Slightly jargon-heavy phrasing ('it rides storage:manage') costs a little, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations plus full schema coverage carry most of the load. The description supplies the permission dependency and result scope, leaving little an agent would need that isn't already structured — only the exact relationship to sibling write tools is unstated.

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%, so both parameters are already documented ('Folder name filter' and 'Form id, slug, or push handle'). The description's '(filter with q)' only restates the schema's filter semantics and adds no format or syntax detail. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('list Google Drive folders for a form') and clarifies the specific scope: the current Drive folder selection plus the connected account's writable folders. This distinguishes it from a generic folder lister, though it doesn't explicitly name the nearest sibling (fillo_set_drive_folder) as the write-side alternative.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'filter with q' hints at narrowing results and the writable-folders framing suggests it's for picking a target folder. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs fillo_set_drive_folder, fillo_reset_drive_folder, or fillo_get_storage.

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