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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes contact fields and owner, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or other operational details. This is useful but modest beyond annotations.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loading the resource and scope before the endpoint. Every clause carries useful information with no filler.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with complete annotations and schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, required identifier, and returned content. Minor gaps such as not-found behavior or permission requirements keep it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, with client_id fully documented as "Client folder id." The description's "by id" adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate for a single well-documented parameter.

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 gives a specific verb/resource ("One client folder by id") and names the returned content (contact fields and owner), distinguishing it from list_client_folders by its singular, id-based scope. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is clear.

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 by "by id" and the endpoint reference: call it when you already have a client folder id and need that folder's details. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as list_client_folders.

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