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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about pagination interaction between skip/limit, what happens when an id is not found, or the cost/shape of a broad query against a 500-record cap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with two clauses that each carry distinct information. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 6 parameters, a nested MongoDB-style query object, and no output schema, the description covers the two access modes but says nothing about the returned record shape, pagination semantics, or error cases. Adequate as a pointer, but thin for a tool of this complexity.

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 83%, so the schema already documents skip, sort, limit, query, and fields in detail, including clamping and defaults. The description only restates the id/query distinction the schema already makes, adding no format or syntax detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (find) and resource (LimAIChat records), and explains the two operating modes (single record by id vs filtered list). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, though the resource name in a family of query_lim* tools is inherently distinguishing.

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?

Gives clear selection criteria: pass id for one record, omit it and use query for a filtered list. This tells the agent which branch to take, though it offers no exclusions or guidance on when a different tool would be preferable.

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