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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It discloses the return fields and the underlying REST endpoint but says nothing about auth scope, rate limits, or default page size behavior beyond what the annotation and schema carry.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the verb, scope, and returned fields. The trailing REST endpoint note is mildly redundant metadata but does not bloat the definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (id, name, email), filling the main gap an agent would face. Both parameters are schema-documented, so the definition is nearly complete, lacking only pagination/auth context.

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 limit and cursor are already fully documented in the schema (including the pagination.nextLink contract). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 users in the Folk workspace') and names the returned fields (id, name, email). This cleanly separates it from folk_get_current_user, which returns only the caller, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

'Useful for resolving owner ids' gives an explicit use case, and the workspace-wide scope is implied by the resource. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g., folk_get_current_user for the caller's own profile), so no exclusions are stated.

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