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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the view is 'pre-approved', the query is read-only, and access is strictly limited to what the view exposes. This helps an agent understand safety and scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no filler. The purpose leads, the prerequisite workflow follows, and the key constraint is stated last. Every sentence earns its place and the description remains compact despite covering purpose, usage, and limitations.

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 tool with seven parameters, a nested filters object, no output schema, and a dependency on list_context_sources, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: it identifies the prerequisite, explains the central 'view' concept, and sets expectations on scope. It could optionally mention how results are returned or clarify the relationship between `client`, `client_id`, and `source`, but the description is largely complete for effective use.

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 71%, but the description adds important semantic context not fully captured by individual parameter descriptions: the concept of a 'view key' and 'filterable columns' directly clarifies the `view` and `filters` parameters. It also explains that `source` may be needed when keys collide, reinforcing the schema. A small amount of additional per-parameter elaboration (especially for `limit`) would make it stronger, but the description substantially aids interpretation.

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 operation: running one pre-approved, read-only view against an external data source. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing list_context_sources as the companion tool for discovering view keys, and by emphasizing the read-only, scoped nature of the query.

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 explicit workflow guidance: call list_context_sources first to discover available view keys and filterable columns. It also states a clear limitation ('You cannot reach anything the view does not expose'), which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of explicitly listing when not to use it or naming alternative query tools, so it does not earn a 5.

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