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 — and it adds almost none. It says nothing about result ordering defaults, that limit defaults to 50 and is clamped to 1-500, or how the two modes differ in shape of return (single object vs array), all of which affect how the agent should call and interpret it.

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 zero waste, front-loading the resource and immediately stating the two modes. Every clause carries information the agent needs to pick a calling 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 query object, and no output schema, the description covers the entry decision but not the mechanics. It never mentions projection via 'fields' or paging via skip/limit/sort, so an agent must read the schema to learn how to shape a filtered call.

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 does most of the work, and a baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the id-versus-query semantics but adds no detail beyond the schema — notably it says nothing about the 'fields' projection parameter, which is the one property left undocumented in the schema.

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 the concrete resource (LimArtReview records), and it explains the two access modes: id for a single record, query for a filtered list. That distinguishes it from the ~90 sibling query_lim* tools, whose only differentiator is the resource noun, which this description supplies clearly.

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 implies the selection rule between the two modes ("pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list"), which is genuine usage guidance for the main decision. But it gives no when-not guidance, no mention of combining id with other parameters, and no note about paging through large result sets with skip/limit.

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