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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It confirms retrieval semantics but does not describe default ordering, default limit behavior, or what happens when both `id` and `query` are supplied — information an agent would want for a 6-parameter query tool.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the two modes laid out in parallel. It is efficient with no filler, though the hyphenated construction compresses the mode-exclusivity nuance into a clause that could be stated more precisely.

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?

Given six parameters, a nested query object, and no output schema, the definition covers the primary invocation paths but omits interactions (id vs. query precedence), defaults, and any hint about the shape of returned records. It is adequate for a uniform CRUD-family tool but leaves real gaps.

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 parameters like skip, limit clamping, sort prefix syntax, and the MongoDB-style filter are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the id-vs-query mode distinction and leaves the precedence between the two undocumented, so it is roughly at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and names the exact resource ('LimAttributionTouch records'), and it distinguishes the two operational modes (single-record by id vs. filtered list). It does not spell out how this differs from the ~120 sibling query_lim* tools, but the unique resource name carries that differentiation implicitly.

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 clear mode-selection guidance: pass `id` to fetch one record, or `query` for a filtered list. It stops short of covering the case of calling with neither parameter (implicitly a full list), and says nothing about when to prefer this over related tools or when to add pagination/sort.

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