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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses non-obvious behavior: unreadable views are reported as not found rather than forbidden, 'so this cannot be used to discover that someone else's view exists.' It also adds the auth scope requirement and the return-versus-effect boundary. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: what it fetches, what it does not return plus the alternative, the security-relevant behavior, and the auth requirement. Each sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the secondary details.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the description fills every remaining gap: return semantics, the alternative execution tool, the not-found information-hiding behavior, and the required scope. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% — view_id has type, length bounds, and a description pointing to list_saved_views as its source. Per the baseline, the schema already does the heavy lifting, and the description adds only marginal context about what a view definition contains rather than parameter syntax or format.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing ('Fetch one saved ticket view's definition by id') and enumerates the exact contents returned (name, filters, columns, grouping, sort, shared flag). It explicitly differentiates itself from execute_saved_view, clarifying it returns the view definition rather than the selected tickets, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings without opening schemas.

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 routes to the alternative: 'use execute_saved_view to run it.' It also states the auth precondition ('requires authentication and the tickets:read scope') and clarifies the not-found semantics. The sibling relationship to list_saved_views is reinforced in the schema's parameter description, tying the workflow together.

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