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 burden is lighter. It adds the id-vs-query branching behavior, but says nothing about defaults, clamping, result ordering, or result volume — some of which the schema covers, but the description does not reinforce.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately presents the two decision branches. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 optional parameters, a nested query object, and no output schema, a one-sentence description leaves gaps: nothing about how results are returned, what happens with no filters (full collection scan?), or how sort/fields interact. Adequate to call the tool, thin for calling it well.

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 parameters are largely self-documenting and the baseline is 3. The description restates the id/query split that the schema already specifies and adds no meaning for skip, sort, limit, or 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LimAuthLink records') and splits the two operating modes (single-record by id vs filtered list). It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from the dozens of identically-shaped query_lim* siblings other than the entity name itself.

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?

The description gives mode-level guidance: pass 'id' for one record, use 'query' for a filtered list. It says nothing about when to reach for this tool over a sibling query tool, nor about pagination or prerequisites; usage is implied rather than instructed.

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