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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description doesn't need to argue safety. It adds nothing beyond that: no note that omitting all filters returns a broad default page, no note about the limit default of 50 or clamping behavior, and no hint about result shape. Adequate but thin for a query tool with no output schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the modal split. There is no filler, hedging, or repetition.

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?

Six optional parameters, a nested query object, and no output schema. The schema covers most parameter meaning, but the description does not mention what a call with no arguments returns or how to interpret the response, leaving a modest gap for a list/query tool.

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% and the parameters already document id, skip, sort, limit, and the MongoDB-style query filter. The description merely restates the id/query distinction the schema already makes, adding no new semantics (for example, nothing about 'fields' projection reasoning or sort field naming). Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ("Find") and resource ("LimApiCall records") and distinguishes the two operating modes: single-record lookup via id versus filtered list via query. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the ~120 query_lim* siblings, but the resource name in the tool name plus the mode split makes the intent unambiguous.

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 conditional guidance: pass id for one record, use query for a filtered list. This selects between the tool's two internal modes. It stops short of exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a different, more specific query tool, or what happens when neither id nor query is supplied).

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