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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses cursor pagination and the required `views:read` API-key scope. The only gap is that it doesn't say what a view object contains or how large pages can be, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then scope mechanics, then pagination and auth scope. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 list tool with full safety annotations and no output schema, this covers the hard parts: scope resolution, pagination existence, and the API-key permission. The missing piece is page-size behavior for `limit`, a minor omission rather than an agent-blocking one.

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 50%, and the description compensates for `scope` (enumerating the four levels) and `scopeIdentifier` (omit-for-workspace, configured workspace fallback), plus implies `cursor` via "Cursor-paginated". `limit` is documented in neither the schema nor the description — no default, max, or units — so the compensation is incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List views") and constrains it by scope, which immediately tells an agent this is the collection-listing counterpart to pm_get_view. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains how to configure `scope`/`scopeIdentifier` (including the omit-for-workspace rule), which is real guidance on invoking the tool. However, it never says when to pick this over pm_get_view, pm_create_view, or pm_search_tasks — the alternative-selection dimension is only implied by the name.

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