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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data rather than the description. The description adds only the underlying REST endpoint (GET /views.json), which signals a thin API proxy but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or auth requirements. Adequate given annotation coverage, but not rich.

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, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded before the alternative and the API reference. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not describe the returned view records (ids, names, counts) that an agent would need to feed into zendesk_execute_view. The pointer to the sibling mitigates this, but the return shape remains implicit for a list tool.

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 both optional filters (access enum, active boolean) are documented inline, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no format or defaulting nuance, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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 and resource ('List saved ticket views') and immediately defines the domain term with a parenthetical ('curated ticket lists'). It also names the complementary sibling, so an agent can separate this discovery tool from zendesk_execute_view without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the run-a-view case to zendesk_execute_view, giving a clear this-tool/then-that-tool pairing. It stops short of stating when listing views is unnecessary (e.g. when the view id is already known) or how this differs from zendesk_list_tickets, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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