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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the id-versus-query branching but says nothing about what a 'find' returns, whether results are paginated beyond limit/skip, or what the response looks like when no match occurs. Useful context, but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence with the resource and the two operating modes front-loaded, and no filler whatsoever. Every clause carries decision-relevant information for selecting the call pattern.

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 six parameters, a nested MongoDB-style filter object, and no output schema, the definition covers the core dispatch (id vs query) but leaves the projection parameter and the shape of returned records unexplained. Adequate for calling the tool, incomplete for predicting results.

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 most parameters (id, skip, sort, limit, query) are already self-documenting in the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate. The description only restates the id and query roles and adds nothing about projection semantics for the undocumented 'fields' array or accepted sort fields.

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 ('LimApiConfig records') and splits behavior into two recognizable modes: single-record lookup by id versus filtered list via query. It is unambiguous on its own, though differentiation from siblings rests entirely on the resource name, since no sibling is named or contrasted.

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 gives concrete selection guidance between the two invocation modes: 'pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list.' That covers the primary branch point an agent faces. It stops short of any when-not-to-use guidance or pointers to alternative tools for related lookups.

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