x_api_get_users_bookmark_folders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Risk: read-only,' required OAuth scopes, environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId/credentialKey, common failure conditions, and a safety warning about sensitive data. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that goes well beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Risk, Required permissions, Environment-selection, Parameter formats, Expected response, Common failures, Recommended tools, Safety, Example), making it easy to scan. The 'Use when: Get Bookmark folders' line is redundant with the first sentence, but otherwise every section earns its place and adds useful 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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description provides an expected response shape, which is valuable. It also includes common failure conditions, prerequisites, and an example invocation. However, it does not fully explain the meaning of the id parameter or how pagination_token should be used across calls, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 description includes a parameter section listing id, max_results, and pagination_token, and explains the role of scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId/credentialKey in environment selection. However, it omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, and the description of id simply says 'unknown,' providing no semantic clarity about what the id refers to. This partially compensates for low schema coverage but leaves significant gaps.

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 opens with 'Get Bookmark folders,' a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like x_api_get_users_bookmarks_by_folder_id, but the resource term 'folders' is distinct enough to avoid confusion for most cases.

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, and recommends prerequisite tools such as x_schema_discovery and x_query_suggestion when exploring. It also lists recommended follow-up tools, giving clear context on when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explain when to choose this over the sibling x_api_get_users_bookmarks_by_folder_id.

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