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; it adds the single-vs-many return shape. It does not mention pagination behavior, default result size, clamping of limit, or authorization requirements, though the schema carries some of these.

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 a dash separating the two modes, with no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse relative to a six-parameter tool.

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 an 83%-documented schema and no output schema, the essentials for invoking it are present. It does not explain what a LimChatFriend is or how results are shaped/paginated, leaving minor gaps against the surrounding siblings.

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%, above the 80% threshold, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the id/query distinction and the notion of a filtered list, but adds no meaning beyond that, and the nested query object's MongoDB-style syntax is documented in the schema rather than here.

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 (LimChatFriend records) and clarifies the two operating modes: single-record by id versus filtered list by query. It is clear, but it offers no differentiation from the many identically shaped query_lim* siblings, so the agent must infer scope purely from the resource name.

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 tells the agent how to choose between the id path and the query path, which is genuine usage guidance for this tool's two modes. However, it gives no conditions for choosing this tool over related siblings like query_limfriendrequest or query_limaccount, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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