ise_dc_view

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

There are no annotations provided, but the description adds some behavioral context: the tool queries views with read semantics, and the 'days_back' behavior (using the view's time column) is disclosed in the parameter description rather than the main description. The description does not clarify rate limits, pagination behavior, query timeout, or what happens on invalid view names. For a query tool with no safety annotations, the description carries more burden, and while not misleading, it's fairly thin on behavioral details beyond 'query'.

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 efficient sentence that packs purpose and usage guidance without fluff. It front-loads the core action ('Query any Data Connect view') and follows with options and usage differentiation. It could arguably be a 5, but the description relies on the schema heavily and doesn't summarize the view enumeration or deployment parameter, slightly extending the ambiguity of an already complex tool with 70+ enum values.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core function, the optional filtering capabilities, and the key differentiation from sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage compensates for parameter documentation, and the cross-references to ise_dc_list_views and ise_list_deployments add completeness. However, it does not describe the return format/shape of results (though no output schema exists), and for a tool with 70+ enum view options some guidance on which views map to which data would help. The complexity is moderate given the schema handles parameter semantics well.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters well (e.g., limit default/max, filter_op enum semantics, deployment resolution order). The description adds general context that filter/sort/limit/days_back are supported but relays on the schema for specifics. The reference to ise_dc_list_views for the enumeration and ise_list_deployments for deployment choices is useful cross-tool guidance. Given complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds modest supplementary guidance via cross-tool references.

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 a specific verb ('Query') with a specific resource ('any Data Connect view') and scope ('with optional filter/sort/limit/days_back'). It clearly states the purpose: retrieving reporting/historical/aggregate data from Data Connect views. The description also distinguishes this from siblings by explicitly saying 'for current configuration state prefer Open API/ERS', differentiating it from the many ise_ers_* and ise_openapi_* sibling tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use for reporting/historical/aggregate data, and an explicit 'when not to use' instruction ('for current configuration state prefer Open API/ERS'). This clearly delineates when this tool should be selected over the numerous sibling tools like ise_ers_search_networkdevice or ise_openapi_radius_* tools. The differentiation between historical/reporting data (this tool) and current config state (Open API/ERS) is exactly the kind of guidance that prevents mis-selection.

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