Get Folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description still adds substantive behavior: the compact FolderSummary vs full Folder under expand, and truncation semantics (scan stops at 500 records / 4 pages, RESOLUTION_TRUNCATED, never a partial answer). Minor gap: it cites 'limit default 25, max 100' but no limit parameter appears in the schema, which could mislead about how to bound the call.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and each subsequent clause carrying routing or behavioral information. No filler; the telegraphic style is intentional and readable.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be fully specified, yet the description still characterizes the response shape and expansion behavior. Combined with bounds, truncation reporting, and sibling routing, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 50%, and the description compensates by explaining that identifier can be an id or a name and that expand:true upgrades the return from summaries to full records. This adds meaning beyond the schema for the two real parameters, though it does not clarify the slug/domain/external_id identifier branches the schema hints at.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resolve a folder') plus the accepted identifier forms and optional company scoping. It explicitly distinguishes itself from folders.get (known id) and hudu_search (text discovery), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule ('use when the identifier is a folder name'), names the cheaper alternative for a known id (folders.get), and states an exclusion ('not for text discovery: call hudu_search'). Both the positive and negative cases are covered.

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