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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: views are scoped to 'this user can open', each returned item carries its stored filter state, and the returned shape is intended as a template for create/update operations. No contradiction with 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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by telling the agent how to reuse the returned shape when creating or updating views.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description adequately conveys what the call returns and how the result should be used. There is no output schema, so it is helpful that the description mentions the filter-state shape, though it stops short of specifying exact fields, ordering, or pagination behavior.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter syntax or meaning; the description instead focuses on the return payload's purpose, which is appropriate here.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the exact resource: 'saved issue views this user can open'. It also states what each view contains ('the filter state it stores'), which clearly distinguishes this listing tool from siblings that create, update, or delete views.

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 establishes a clear read-only listing context and adds a practical routing hint: 'Copy that shape when creating or updating a view.' It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but for a zero-parameter list tool, the usage context is clear enough without needing explicit exclusions.

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