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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the output format is compatible with query_leads and export_leads, and clarifies that views are user-defined named filters. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the data and its reuse. No contradiction.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the purpose, provides an example, and explains the key integration point without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence contributes meaning and 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?

With no parameters, an existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what is listed, the format compatibility, and the practical use case. It does not discuss pagination or limits, but these are likely in the output schema. Overall, it is complete for a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly focuses on output rather than inputs. Schema description coverage is 100% by default, and the description adds no parameter details because none are needed. The baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters.

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 that the tool lists the account's saved views from the leads table, each being a named set of filters, with a concrete example ('Roofers with a mobile number'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_searches by specifying 'saved views' as the resource. The verb 'list' is unambiguous and directly matches the title.

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 explains that the returned filter conditions are in the exact shape query_leads and export_leads accept, implying this tool is used to retrieve saved views before querying or exporting them. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, but the context makes the primary use case clear.

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