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

The description explicitly states 'Idempotent' and explains the no-op behavior, but the annotations include idempotentHint: false. This is a direct contradiction. According to the rubric, a contradiction with annotations mandates a score of 1, regardless of other disclosed context (auth, definition intact). Flagging as annotation_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?

Three sentences, each with a clear purpose: purpose, idempotency behavior, and discovery/auth. No wordiness, front-loaded with the most critical information. 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 tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, idempotency, how to find the view, and auth requirements. The output schema handles return-value documentation. Minor gaps: no mention of error conditions or behavior if the view doesn't exist, but these are not critical given the output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter view_id is fully described in the schema with 'The view's id, from list_saved_views with scope=archived.' Schema description coverage is 100%, so per the rubric, the baseline is 3. The tool description itself doesn't add extra parameter semantics, but none are needed since the schema covers it and the description's pointer to list_saved_views aligns with 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 clearly states the action: 'Return one of YOUR OWN archived saved views to the working set with its definition intact.' It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('archived saved views'), and the word 'YOUR OWN' distinguishes ownership. It differentiates from siblings like archive_saved_view and delete_saved_view by focusing on restoration.

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 provides a direct pointer to list_saved_views with scope=archived to find restorable views, which is excellent practical guidance. It also mentions the required auth scope ('tickets:write') and the tool's idempotent behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare to alternatives like restore vs. execute_saved_view, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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