List survey folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: contact details in folder titles are redacted by default and only revealed when include_contact_details is set, which is the key operational caveat for this tool.

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 dense sentences, no filler. Resource and scope come first, and the redaction caveat follows as the operational detail.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and the schema covering pagination/sorting, listing the returned fields and the redaction rule is sufficient. It stops short of 5 only because it says nothing about result volume or continuation behavior, though the schema's page/max_results parameters largely carry that.

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 75% and the schema already documents page, sort_by, and include_contact_details. The description reinforces the semantic effect of include_contact_details (overriding redaction), which adds meaning beyond the terse schema text; only max_results remains undocumented in both places.

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 (survey folders) and the scope (the API key's account) and even previews the returned fields (id, type, title), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_surveys, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_surveys, get_survey, or a search-style alternative. Usage is only implied by the name and the word 'List', leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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