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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the implicit domain-resolution rule for multi-domain accountant keys and the default scoping when the parameter is omitted, which an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned resource and fields, then the one conditional that matters. The trailing 'Archive.DocumentFolders.' is a bare API namespace tag that adds little for an agent choosing a tool, but it is a minor cost.

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?

A single optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety — the description supplies the return fields and the domain-scoping behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. It does not mention ordering, volume, or whether folders are returned hierarchically, which would matter for a folder-listing call.

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% and the schema already tells the agent to source the id from yuki_list_domains. The description nevertheless adds the resolution rule that is not in the schema — that omission defaults to the key's only domain — which clarifies what actually happens rather than just repeating the pattern constraint.

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 precisely ('folders of the document archive') and the returned fields (id, name), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. The verb is implicit ('The folders of...') rather than stated, and it never distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling yuki_list_document_folder_tabs, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 guidance is scoped to the parameter rather than the tool: it explains that domain_id should be passed when an accountant key spans several domains and that otherwise the key's single domain is used. There is no statement of when to choose this tool over yuki_list_documents, yuki_list_document_folder_tabs, or yuki_search_documents.

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