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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read-only list operation and requires authentication. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, filtering scope, error conditions, or whether the list includes sub-folders. The information is sufficient for basic usage but lacks depth for safe autonomous invocation.

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 a single, straightforward sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and includes a key requirement. However, it could be slightly more complete without becoming wordy. The conciseness is good but not exceptional given the opportunity to add more behavioral context.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide enough detail for correct tool usage. It states what it returns and the auth requirement, but omits important context like whether results are paginated, how to handle errors, or if there are any access scope limitations. The description meets basic needs but leaves gaps for complex agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (vacuous). The description adds value by explaining what is returned ('id and name') and that authentication is needed. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate—the description provides useful operational context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('List your folders') and the resource ('folders'), explicitly mentioning the returned fields ('id and name'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_folder, delete_folder, and other list tools by specifying the exact resource being listed.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a prerequisite ('Requires an OpenQR API key'), which is an authentication detail rather than a usage context. There is no comparison to siblings or conditions where another tool would be preferable.

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