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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, does not mention authentication requirements, or describe any side effects. For a simple list operation this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter hint is placed logically at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core usage. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., what fields are included, whether pagination applies), which would be helpful for an agent to know what data to expect. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap but still relevant.

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 schema already describes entityType as 'Only views for this record type.' The description adds a bit of context by saying 'Pass entityType to narrow to one kind of record,' which reinforces but does not significantly extend the schema meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides marginal added value.

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 clearly states the tool lists saved views and explains they are stored filters over contacts, companies, deals, or tasks. It also gives the typical use cases (answering 'what views do I have?' or finding a view id). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling saved_views_create.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to answer ... or to find a view id before applying its filter') and gives a hint about the parameter usage ('Pass entityType to narrow to one kind of record'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use cases are clear enough.

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