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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the result is guaranteed to match the app's own filter and sort for that view, and the view name must be sourced from get_workspace. Return format and pagination behavior are left to the schema/output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the discovery hint and the equivalence guarantee packed into a single clause. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the read-only/idempotent annotations cover side effects. The description supplies name discovery and result-equivalence semantics, which is adequate, though it never mentions pagination or what happens if the named view does not exist.

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 all three parameters (view, limit, offset) are already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description's "by name" adds only a small amount of meaning for the required view parameter and says nothing about limit/offset.

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 and resource ("Runs a saved view by name") and clarifies that get_workspace is where view names come from, which separates it from the listing tool. It does not, however, contrast running a saved view with the other retrieval sibling search_items, so differentiation is only partial.

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 parenthetical "(get_workspace lists them)" tells the agent the prerequisite for obtaining a valid view name, which is real usage context. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of an alternative path when no saved view exists.

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