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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by enumerating what the response contains, which is meaningful since no output schema exists, though it says nothing about pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the verb and resource before the field list. The field enumeration is a long run-on clause, but no sentence is pure waste; 'Replaces list_view_targets' is useful migration context.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by listing the fields returned. It stops short of explaining pagination behavior or whether view_id bypasses paging, a minor gap for a 4-param listing tool.

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 50%: 'enabled' and 'view_id' are documented in the schema, while 'page' and 'limit' are not. The description reinforces view_id's read-one-View semantics but adds nothing about paging or limit, so it only partly 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Lists the caller's saved Views') and enumerates the returned fields (predicate, on/paused state, member_count, Matches in last 7 days, destinations, Digest), which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_matches and get_view_alert_preview.

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?

Routes the agent conditionally: 'Use list_matches for which events entered them, and get_view_alert_preview for what one View would email', and explains that view_id reads one View instead of a page. It also flags that it 'Replaces list_view_targets', which is present as a sibling.

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