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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the result is a hierarchical structure scoped to user access, and includes workflow counts—context beyond the annotations. It does not discuss edge cases or error behavior, but for a simple no-parameter get tool this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The purpose and return structure are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage guidance in the second. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it returns (hierarchical tree with counts), and when to use it. It is complete without over-explaining, as the output schema handles detailed return fields.

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 schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it instead clarifies the output structure, which is useful.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the complete folder tree') and clearly describes the output ('Returns all folders the user has access to in a hierarchical structure with workflow counts'). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_workflows and create_workflow by framing itself as the discovery mechanism for folder IDs, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover folder IDs for list_workflows or create_workflow.' This gives a concrete use case, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative folder-related tools like update_folders. Still, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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