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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds only the id-vs-query behavioral split and says nothing about pagination clamping, sort behavior, or field projection semantics. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 no wasted words, moving directly from purpose to mode selection. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though the compressed phrasing merges purpose and usage into one clause.

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 no output schema, the description need not explain return values, but for a 6-parameter query tool with a nested MongoDB-style filter object it leaves sort syntax, limit defaults, and field projection entirely to the schema (and `fields` undocumented anywhere). It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, and query. The description merely restates the id/query distinction rather than adding format or syntax detail, and the undescribed `fields` array remains unexplained. 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 ("LimChatMessage records") and distinguishes its two modes (single record via id vs. filtered list via query). It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling query_lim* tools, but the resource name plus mode selection makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states the condition that selects each mode: "pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list." This is clear when-to-use guidance for the two paths. It offers no exclusions or alternatives to other sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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