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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: it returns ids required by several sibling tools, explains editable flags for joined-table fields, specifies boolean encoding for queries, and warns that field name must be used rather than label or tableFieldName. This materially helps the agent understand the tool's outputs and constraints.

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 description is long but dense and mostly well-structured: purpose, usage rule, return shape, field semantics, data types, and query-naming guidance in order. The data type list is extensive, but since there is no output schema it earns its place; minor redundancy with schema-described nameFilter keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the response, and it does so in detail: view id, name, field definitions, per-field properties, the meaning of editable=false, and data type encodings. It also connects the returned id to the sibling data-manipulation tools, making it easy for an agent to chain calls correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little by restating the nameFilter behavior and the 'omit to list all views' option, but it does not elaborate beyond the schema on pageSize, pageNumber, or includeTriggeredActions.

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: 'Discovers views in the Caspio account along with their field schemas in a single call.' It clearly distinguishes views from tables and directories, and the statement that views can join multiple tables separates this tool from discover_tables.

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 gives the selection rule: 'use views when the user's request aligns with an existing view or when the needed data spans multiple tables.' It also explains that tables are the primary data objects, implying when not to prefer views, and gives concrete guidance on using nameFilter versus omitting it.

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