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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context — it does so by naming the underlying REST endpoint (GET /views/{id}/execute.json) and confirming the return is matching tickets. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or view execution limits beyond what the schema's page/per_page params imply.

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 action and outcome, with the endpoint mapping appended as an optional technical note. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-resource read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does and roughly what it returns. The only mild gap is that it doesn't characterize the ticket payload or pagination envelope, though pagination params are visible in the schema.

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%, so every parameter (id, page, sort_by, per_page, sort_order) is already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only that the call is keyed 'by id', which the schema already states more precisely (numeric view id from zendesk_list_views).

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Run a saved view by id') and states the outcome ('return the matching tickets'), which separates it from zendesk_list_views and zendesk_list_tickets. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the call to use when it has a view id and wants that view's tickets. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that the view must exist or that list_views supplies the id — that hint lives only in the schema), and no alternative such as zendesk_search or zendesk_list_tickets is contrasted.

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