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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds the id-vs-query branching behavior but says nothing about pagination limits, clamping, or result shape beyond what the schema documents.

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 filler; the primary mode (single record) leads and the fallback (filtered list) follows. Nothing is redundant, though it is spare to the point of thinness.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested MongoDB-style filter and no output schema, the description covers the core calling pattern but leaves the query/sort/fields interplay and result-shape expectations entirely to the schema. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 documents id, skip, sort, limit, and query semantics (including defaults and clamping). The description only restates the id/query dichotomy and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LimCoinGateSnapshot records') and clarifies the two operating modes (single record by id vs. filtered list). It does not distinguish itself from the ~75 sibling query_lim* tools, though the resource name itself does most of that work.

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?

It gives routing guidance between the two modes ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which is genuinely useful, but offers no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use context or named alternatives. Usage is implied by parameter shape rather than stated as a decision rule.

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