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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, so the description's remaining burden is to add context such as return shape, cost, or limits. Instead it restates the single-vs-list invocation split that the id and query schema descriptions already state ("Fetch one record by id; omit to query many"), and says nothing about what a match returns or how pagination/clamping behaves at runtime.

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 zero filler; the two modes are stated in the order an agent would evaluate them. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 six-parameter read tool with a nested MongoDB-style filter and no output schema, the definition covers mode selection but leaves the return shape ambiguous (single object vs array, and what fields appear). It also leaves "fields" undocumented, since the schema provides no description for it and the description does not compensate.

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%, above the threshold where the schema carries parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only names id and query and adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema — notably it offers nothing for the undocumented "fields" parameter.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Find") with a named resource ("LimAiShare records") and states the two invocation modes: id for a single record, query for a filtered list. The resource name distinguishes it from the long list of sibling query_* tools for other entities, though it does not explicitly contrast behavior with any of them.

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?

"Pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list" gives clear selection guidance between the tool's two modes, which is the main decision an agent must make here. It stops short of exclusions (e.g., what happens if both id and query are supplied, or when to prefer a different tool), so it is clear context rather than fully 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.