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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that the result is empty when no view is pinned, which is useful. It does not describe pagination or return structure, but the output schema exists, so the bar is lower. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is compact and front-loaded with the core action and resource. It includes the important edge case without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with two fully documented parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that this is the tool to use when you need the user's pinned default rather than a specific saved view, but the name and description make that clear.

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 both parameters (companyId and datatableCode) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('returns'), a specific resource ('the calling user's pinned default view for a datatable'), and a key edge case ('empty when none is pinned'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like saved_view_get_saved_view and saved_view_get_list_saved_views.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single default saved view for a datatable, which is a clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names and the phrase 'default view' make the use case clear enough. A small gap: no explicit statement about when to use this vs saved_view_get_saved_view.

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