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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (id, name, locale, dataSourceId, publish dates) and the case-insensitive substring matching across languages. It could also mention pagination or rate limits, but given the annotation coverage, this is solid.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes meaning. There is no filler or redundancy, and it remains compact while covering resource context, return fields, and filter semantics.

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 moderately simple read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what a view is, what data is returned, and how filtering works. It does not mention default limit or sort order, but the schema documents the limit default, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by listing the return fields. Overall, adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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% and already explains all three parameters with examples. The description adds minimal new information beyond restating the query filter behavior and the locale values (which also appear in the schema). It does not need to compensate for a schema gap, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Browse/search Statbel saved statistical views.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_view (which retrieves a specific view) by describing this as a listing/search tool. It also explains the resource concept (pre-built table over a dataset), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states the core usage (browse/search views) and mentions filter options, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. The distinction from get_view and list_datasets is implied by context but not stated directly, so it falls short of explicit guidance.

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