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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the ordering behavior of the result set, which is genuine extra context, but nothing about pagination, result size, or cases where no saved views exist.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the ordering detail is front-loaded and the return-shape note follows. Effective use of limited space.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches what comes back (params, ai_filters), but it leaves the required inputs entirely undocumented and gives no sense of scale or failure modes.

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 0% and neither app_id nor view_id is explained anywhere. The mention of 'params' and 'ai_filters' describes return fields, not the two required input parameters, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names the resource precisely (saved filter presets on one app view) and even describes the ordering of the returned items ('your own, then the ones shared with everyone'). It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, but combined with the name the action is unambiguous. No obvious sibling overlaps it, so sibling differentiation is less critical here.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what context (which app/view) an agent should already have. The description only characterizes the payload, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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