Check the exchange folder

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds genuine behavior: it never throws on a missing folder and directs the caller to read folderPresent instead. It does not discuss latency or cost, but for a local read-only status probe that omission is minor.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the diagnostic guidance, then the error-behavior caveat. The middle sentence is long but every clause (threshold, causes) earns its place. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming folderPresent, queueDepth, schema version, and result age. Combined with the error-handling note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this zero-argument probe.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mentions of queueDepth and folderPresent refer to output fields rather than inputs, so there is no parameter semantics to add.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates exactly what is reported: folder existence/preparedness, per-tool schema version, in/ queueDepth, and age of the newest result. This clearly separates it from siblings like setoolbox_list_tools or setoolbox_get_schema, which return different content.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use it to tell the user "SEToolBox is not running" when runs time out') and even interprets the output threshold ('queueDepth above zero for longer than a few seconds') with the likely causes (app closed, runs off, iPad not foreground). The when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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