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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing that the result includes each widget's query and visualization configuration, which is useful context given there is no output schema.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that communicates the operation, scope, and result contents without filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 single-parameter read-only list operation, the description provides sufficient context: what to provide (viewId implied) and what to expect in return. It does not cover pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for this tool's basic invocation.

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%, with viewId already described as 'View id.' The description does not add meaning beyond echoing the relationship between the view and the widgets. This meets the baseline for schema-supported parameters but adds no new semantic detail.

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 states a specific verb (list), a clear resource (widgets on a view), and the scope (per view), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_widget_types and list_views. It also adds what is included, the query and visualization configuration, making the tool's purpose precise.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving widgets belonging to a specific view, establishing the context for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling differentiation is reasonably clear from the wording.

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