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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: per-plan view caps that can cause the call to fail, and the fact that filters combine with AND logic. It does not address what happens on duplicate names or what the response contains, which matters for a non-idempotent create.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then definition, then filter semantics, then limits. No redundancy and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 two-parameter create tool with rich schema descriptions and full annotations, the definition covers purpose, filter combination semantics and quota failure modes. The remaining gap is that with no output schema, the description never says what a successful call returns (e.g., the new view's ID), which an agent would need to chain into update_saved_view.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining that the filters object is applied with AND logic, a semantic the schema never states and one an agent needs in order to build a correct preset. It adds nothing about the individual filter fields, but the schema already documents all of them.

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?

"Create a new saved link-list view" gives a specific verb and resource, and the follow-up sentence defines what a view is (a named filter preset recallable from the dashboard). That cleanly separates it from list_saved_views, update_saved_view and delete_saved_view. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer you call this when you want to persist a filter combination for reuse. The plan-tier quotas (3 / 20 / unlimited) are genuinely useful context for deciding whether to create, but there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., check list_saved_views first, or prefer update_saved_view if a similar preset exists).

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