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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the id-vs-query mode distinction but says nothing about pagination, default limits, or result shape beyond what the schema already provides.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the resource and both access modes with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only query tool with strong schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete - it explains the two modes clearly. It omits pagination/sort context, but that is well covered by the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 documents nearly all parameters, including the limit default and clamping behavior. The description only reinforces id and query usage, adding marginal meaning beyond the structured fields - baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('LimCalendarEvent records'), and clarifies the two retrieval modes (single by id vs filtered list by query). It is clear on its own, though differentiation from the many sibling query_lim* tools rests entirely on the resource name rather than any explicit contrast.

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 distinguishes the two modes - pass id for one record, query for a filtered list - which gives implied guidance on parameter selection. It offers no broader when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the 47 sibling query tools.

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