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

The description states it 'returns field names, types, defaults, and hints,' which directly describes the output. While the annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds context about the type of information retrieved without contradicting the annotations. It does not mention side effects, but given the 'get' nature, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences plus brief parameter explanations. It avoids unnecessary fluff and directly conveys the essential information about the tool's purpose and usage. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has a simple schema (two string parameters) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, what the parameters mean, and the kind of output expected. It does not elaborate on error handling or edge cases, but for a signature retrieval tool, this is acceptable. The description is complete enough to guide an agent effectively.

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 Args section provides meaningful descriptions for both parameters, explaining that 'owner_username' is the view owner's username (from search results) and 'viewname' is the view's URL slug (from search results). This adds valuable context beyond the schema's basic type information, clarifying the source and purpose of each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving the full input contract for a financial calculator, including field names, types, defaults, and hints. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_view (execution), get_view_source (source retrieval), and search_pulse/search_views (search) by emphasizing it provides the necessary input specification before running a calculation.

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 explicitly mentions using this tool 'before running a calculation,' indicating the appropriate timing. It also instructs that the arguments come 'from search results,' providing clear guidance on how to obtain the required parameters. This contextualizes usage well and distinguishes it from other tools.

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