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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious failure mode ('404 if it belongs to another community') and the presence of resource_count in the result. It does not mention authentication or other error cases, but for a simple one-parameter getter this is reasonably transparent.

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 unnecessary words. The core action and the key edge case are front-loaded, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the lookup target, the included resource_count field, and the community-scoping 404 behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds only minimal meaning: the id identifies the resource folder to fetch. It correctly links the sole required parameter to the operation but does not elaborate beyond what the schema already implies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one resource folder by id, with its resource_count.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_resource_folders (one vs list) and get_resource (folder vs resource). The 404 clause reinforces the tool's specific scope.

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?

'Fetch one resource folder by id' clearly signals the use case of single-item lookup by ID, implying that list_resource_folders is the choice for multiple folders. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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