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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the tab ordering, that the first view is the one the Base opens on, that at least one active view always exists, and that `status=archived` is a predicate over the same shape. This is meaningful disclosure that the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The front-loaded sentences about ordering and the default view are efficient and earn their place. However, the trailing sentence about Busabase writing through ChangeRequests (messages, diffs, history) is boilerplate irrelevant to a read-only list tool and pads the definition.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, default selection, archived behavior, and the multi-space prerequisite well. The main omission is any sense of the returned view shape, but the essential call-correctly information is present.

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 67%, so the schema documents `status` (with a clarifying note that archived rows share the live shape) and `targetSpaceId`. The description reinforces the `status=archived` semantics but adds nothing for the undocumented `baseId`, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource (saved views for a Base) and goes further by pinning down the ordering (`position`, then creation time) and the default view. An agent can immediately tell what this returns, and there is no sibling that lists Base views, so no confusion arises.

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 one conditional branch of usage — `status=archived` returns soft-deleted views instead — and a multi-space prerequisite (call auth_verify, ask the user, pass targetSpaceId). However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving usage largely implied.

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