Show Folder Sharing

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding auth context: the required 'Read all data' permission and the delegated 'all:delegate_to_contact_permissions' token path. This is real behavioral context not present in the structured fields, though it doesn't cover rate limits or error behavior.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the permission block follows as supporting detail. It is somewhat boilerplate-heavy for a simple read tool but every section is relevant and no sentence is redundant.

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, 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, the description plus auth requirements cover what an agent needs. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since the return is a described 'sharing object', though its fields are not characterized.

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 description coverage is 100%, so folder_id and sharing_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that a folder and a specific sharing object are involved, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves the details of a specific sharing object for a given folder.' This clearly distinguishes it from a list operation, though it never names the closest siblings (list_folder_sharings, create/update/delete_folder_sharing) explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from 'specific sharing object' that this is the single-item counterpart to list_folder_sharings, and nothing addresses ordering, error cases, or alternatives.

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