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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that with the admin-only Twig definition and the fact that output_shape is sampled from the first cached item rather than exhaustive. It stops short of noting cost or failure behavior for unknown ids, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the return-shape and admin notes are packed efficiently. The enumeration of return fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, return contents, sampling caveat, and admin-only extras. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and there is a single required 'id' parameter whose schema description already says to use list_views. The description's own 'use list_views' line duplicates that structured guidance rather than adding format or constraint detail.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Describe one data view in detail') and the body immediately distinguishes it from get_view and query_view by framing it as the metadata/shape-inspection step that precedes them. An agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite ('Use list_views to discover view ids first') and gives the downstream reason to call this tool ('so agents can compose effective query_view / get_view calls'), which implicitly but clearly routes the agent between the three view-related siblings.

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