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

Annotations already declare it as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of the returned data — filter parameters as URL-form strings and AI filter boxes' saved prompts and results — which is otherwise undocumented since no output schema exists.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its ordering rule. The second sentence is dense and uses field names (params, ai_filters) that could be mistaken for inputs, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema the description does well to sketch the return structure, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, it never explains what app_id/view_id values are acceptable, nor mentions pagination or volume, leaving meaningful gaps for a lookup tool with 0% parameter documentation.

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%: neither app_id nor view_id is documented anywhere. The description alludes to 'one app view' and mentions 'params'/'ai_filters', but those terms refer to returned fields, not the two required inputs, so an agent still has no guidance on what identifiers to supply.

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 a specific resource — saved filter presets attached to a single app view — and clarifies the ordering (own presets first, then shared ones). It is clear enough for an agent, though the verb (list/retrieve) is only implied rather than stated, and it makes no attempt to differentiate itself from the many other list_* siblings.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the numerous other listing tools, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a valid app/view), and no exclusions. The only guidance is the implicit ordering of results, which is descriptive rather than actionable.

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