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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's real contribution is the domain gloss on what a saved view represents, which is genuinely useful context; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether a default set is returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical earning its place by defining an ambiguous domain term. No filler.

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 zero-required-parameter read list with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and what the optional filter does. Only minor gaps remain (result ordering, empty-list behavior, relationship to saved_views_manage) that an agent could want.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Only views for this record type' with a four-value enum. The parenthetical in the description lists the same four record types, slightly reinforcing the filter semantics but adding no syntax or default behavior beyond the schema.

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 ('List saved views') and adds a clarifying gloss ('named filters over contacts, companies, deals or tasks') that tells an agent what a saved view actually is. The list-vs-manage split with the sibling saved_views_manage is clear from the verb and read-only annotations, though the description never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the read path and saved_views_manage is the write path. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of whether views must be created first, and no exclusion statements.

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