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 only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the dual-mode behavior (single-record fetch vs filtered list), which is useful. It says nothing about result ordering, default limits, or what an empty/missing record looks like, though those details live in the 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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the primary use case (find records) is front-loaded before the mode distinction. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

This is a six-parameter tool with a nested MongoDB-style query object and no output schema, yet the description never explains the query filter semantics or what the response contains (a list vs a single object). The schema covers most parameters, but for a highly generic collection-query tool competing with 100 near-identical siblings, more guidance on result shape and filter behavior is warranted.

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 id, skip, sort, limit, query, and the model largely does the work. The description's 'pass id ... or query' framing largely restates what the id parameter description already says ('omit to query many'), adding little beyond it. The undocumented fields array is not addressed in either place.

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 (LimArtItem records) and distinguishes the resource from the ~100 sibling query_lim* tools that each target a different collection. It does not, however, say anything about what a LimArtItem is or how it differs in scope from related siblings, so an agent only gets differentiation by name.

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 explicit mode selection: pass id for a single record, use query for a filtered list. That is a genuine when-to-use rule rather than an implication. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., when to prefer a different sibling) or stating 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.