ise_dc_list_views

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It states this is a list operation (read-only implied by 'List...views') and notes it exposes data not available elsewhere. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, whether all views are returned in one call, caching, or performance characteristics. For a list tool this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by return content and usage context. The 'Starting point' phrase conveys more meaning than several longer sentences would.

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 simple list tool with one optional fully-documented parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers what's returned, when to use it, and the deployment parameter is fully handled by the schema. No output schema means the return-content note (descriptions, column counts, time columns) is valuable context.

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 100%, and the single optional 'deployment' parameter is fully described in the schema including how to reference deployments (name/slug/number) and that omitting it uses the default. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the appropriate baseline given full coverage.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List all Data Connect database views' with return content specified (descriptions, column counts, time columns). The 'Starting point for reporting/historical/aggregate questions' phrase contextualizes purpose. Distinguishes from siblings like ise_dc_view (single view) and ise_dc_describe (schema description).

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 frames this as a starting point for reporting/historical/aggregate questions and notes data no higher surface exposes. Doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but 'Starting point' implies it precedes ise_dc_view/ise_dc_query. Could name specific sibling alternatives more explicitly.

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