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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add contextual detail; it does so by noting the result includes a source URL for citation. It does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid ids, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the resource, the retrieval criterion, and a distinctive output characteristic in very few words.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations that establish a safe read-only operation, the description covers the essential context. It could mention what 'attributed' means or behavior for missing ids, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, but there is only one parameter, view_id, which the description usefully ties to the 'by id' retrieval behavior. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the field name and type, but it is sufficient for a simple integer identifier.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('view'), and a retrieval mode ('by id'), which clearly differentiates it from list/search siblings. The phrase 'attributed view' and 'source URL for citation' add helpful specificity, though what an 'attributed view' is could be clearer.

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 implies the tool is for fetching a single view when you have its id, and the mention of citation hints at a use case. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like get_latest or search, leaving exclusion logic to inference.

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