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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds only the cardinality behavior (one record via id, filtered list via query); it does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or return format details beyond cardinality.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, and the primary usage pattern is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a query tool whose schema carries the parameter detail.

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?

Given readOnly annotations, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides enough orientation for the main call patterns. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or field selection, but those are documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters (id, skip, sort, limit, query). The description repeats the id/query mode distinction but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the undocumented 'fields' parameter is not covered.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LimAiMcp records') and distinguishes the single-record vs filtered-list modes. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or explain what LimAiMcp is, but the resource name differentiates it from the other query_lim* siblings.

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?

It tells the agent how to select between id and query ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other query_lim* tools or any prerequisites. This is implied usage rather than explicit when/when-not guidance.

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