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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read; the description's only added behavioral content is the id-vs-query branching, which is largely mirrored in the schema. It says nothing about default result sizes, clamping, projection behavior, or cost of broad queries that would help an agent anticipate outcomes.

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 with zero filler; the two modes are stated in the order an agent needs them. Nothing could be removed without losing routing 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?

For a six-parameter tool with a nested MongoDB-style filter and no output schema, the description covers mode selection but not the shape of returned records or the meaning of 'fields' projection. Adequate given strong schema coverage, but thin for a query tool whose filter object is free-form.

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 already explains id, skip, sort, limit, and query semantics in detail. The description only echoes the id and query parameters and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('LimCertificate records'), and explicitly covers both operating modes (single record by id, filtered list by query). It does not need to differentiate from siblings beyond the resource name, since every sibling is a distinct resource under the same query_lim* convention.

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?

'Pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list' gives clear mode-selection guidance, which is the main routing decision for this tool. However, it says nothing about when to prefer this over a related lookup tool, what happens if both id and query are supplied, or how skip/limit/sort/fields fit into the choice.

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