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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the response envelope { count, next_skip, items }, the pagination contract (pass next_skip as skip), and the endpoint. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool the added pagination and response-shape detail is substantive.

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?

Six short clauses, zero filler, with the response shape and pagination rule front-loaded before filtering details. Every sentence carries operational information.

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 supplies the return shape and pagination cursor, and all six params are documented in the schema. Annotations cover the safety profile. Only the absence of any sibling-routing guidance or permission notes keeps it short of complete.

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 every one of the six parameters is already documented in the schema with examples and constraints. The description's parameter mentions (id, skip/next_skip, filters, query) largely restate what the schema already says, so it lands at the baseline 3 rather than adding new semantics.

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 names the resource (file folders) and states the HTTP endpoint GET /file-folders, making the operation inferable. However, it never uses an explicit verb like "list" in the body and does not distinguish folders from the numerous sibling list tools (e.g. plutio_list_files, plutio_list_projects) beyond the resource noun.

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?

It explicitly describes two usage modes — "Pass id to read one record" versus paged listing — and explains the two filtering strategies (exact-match fields vs MongoDB-style query). It gives clear operational context but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over a sibling list tool.

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