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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description instead spends its budget on payload semantics — member_count, 7-day Match counts, alert destinations, Digest flag — which is the right addition given no output schema exists. It stops short of mentioning pagination behavior or ordering, which would have closed the loop to a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose, then the result shape, then the sibling routing, so an agent reading only the first clause still knows what the tool is. The row-contents sentence is dense but each clause names a distinct returned field, so little is wasted; it runs long for a list tool, which keeps it off 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?

With seven optional parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description carries the right load: it explains what a View is and what each row contains, which is exactly what the missing output schema would have provided. Pagination defaults and filter interaction are left entirely to the schema, a minor gap for a paged list 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 100%, so the schema already documents page, limit, tags, colors, search and enabled. The description only restates view_id ('view_id reads one View'), which the schema also says, and never mentions that the filters combine or how they scope the result. Baseline 3 is the correct ceiling here.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists the account's Views') and then defines the domain object itself: a saved event filter with a predicate, checked on a schedule, producing Matches and alerts. That conceptual definition lets an agent distinguish list_views from list_matches or list_watchlist without opening any 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 states the triggering user intent explicitly ('Use it when the person asks about their saved filters or alerts') and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: list_matches for events that entered a View, get_view_alert_preview for what one View would email. Routing is fully determined.

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