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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what happens for an unknown ID, no indication of the returned folder shape, and no filtering/permission 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the underlying HTTP endpoint. Efficient, though the raw route path is largely redundant with the tool name and annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate. It still leaves the agent unable to tell when to pick this folder-by-ID call over the folder list/root siblings, which is the main decision the description should resolve.

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% with a single 'id' parameter documented as 'Folder ID', so the schema already does the work. The description only implies the path-based lookup and adds no format, sourcing, or example detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Get code strategy folder by ID'), so the agent knows it retrieves a single code-strategy folder rather than a list. However, it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as get_strategy_code_folder (list), get_strategy_code_folder_root, or get_strategy_reaction_code_folder_id; only the '_id' in the name and the phrase 'by ID' carry that distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a known folder ID), and no mention of alternatives like the list or root variants. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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