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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, and 'Saves nothing' is consistent with it. Beyond the annotations it adds genuinely useful behavior: the view runs its own Queries through the host at render time, which changes how an agent should sequence data-tool calls. It doesn't cover fallback behavior on hosts without MCP Apps support or error modes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the two modes, then behavioral caveats, then the persistence alternative. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only display tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers modes, host requirement, query execution, and non-persistence. Only a note on what happens when the host can't render MCP Apps would make it complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by clarifying that artifact_id resolves a saved view (from generate_view or list_artifacts) while source is the inline alternative you write after view_components, and by implying title belongs to the unsaved case.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Draw a view in the conversation') and immediately splits it into the two supported modes: a saved view by artifact_id, or inline view source. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings generate_view (persists) and view_components (authoring), so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions: only for hosts that show MCP Apps; call data tools first only to learn return shapes, not to feed the view; call generate_view if you want the view kept. Alternatives and exclusions are both named.

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