run_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose meaningful behavior: the view is 'data-only' (no side effects), 'bounded', and that limit/offset 'may override its page size'. It stops short of stating permissions, whether the override is truncating, or what happens on an unknown name.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the second sentence earns its place by defining a view and the pagination override.

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 read-style, 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and pagination behavior but omits prerequisite workflow (configured views), failure behavior, and any auth context, leaving clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents the limit/offset override semantics and that name selects the view, but leaves the name pattern/regex constraints and offset's exact meaning (rows skipped) entirely to the schema.

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 ('Run one configured saved view') and clarifies what a view is ('a bounded, data-only set of search filters'). An agent can distinguish it from list_views by the run/list verb pairing, though the description never explicitly names the sibling.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives are given. It implies a view must already be configured, but the description never tells the agent to call list_views first nor when to prefer this over search or retrieve.

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