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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are cached, view data is freeform, and limit is capped at 50. It does not discuss staleness of the cache or latency, which would have pushed it higher.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the describe_view prerequisite front-loaded. Every sentence contributes a distinct constraint or routing hint, and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining agent-relevant concerns: freeform field discovery, pagination, and the limit cap. Nothing needed to invoke 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?

With 75% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by explaining that include/exclude/sort use REST syntax and the same vocabulary as query_collection, plus routing field-name discovery to describe_view. It adds cross-tool semantics the schema cannot express.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Paginated query against a data view's cached result') and immediately differentiates itself from query_collection by sharing its vocabulary. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_view or query_collection 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 gives an explicit prerequisite ('call describe_view first to learn the field set') and a pagination instruction ('use offset to paginate larger views'). It stops short of stating exclusions relative to query_collection, but the 'cached result' scoping implies the boundary.

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