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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds only the fact that this is a find operation with two entry points. It does not disclose pagination defaults, clamping behavior, or result shape – though those are partly covered in the schema.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and then the two modes. No wasted words; every clause carries an instruction.

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 query tool with a nested MongoDB-style filter object and no output schema, the description is minimal but mostly sufficient given strong schema coverage. It does not address the nested query operators the agent must construct, leaving a modest gap.

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 most parameters are already documented in the schema with meaningful detail (clamping, sort prefix syntax, MongoDB-style query example). The description reinforces the id/query split but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('LimCollaboration records'), and distinguishes the two operation modes (single record vs filtered list). It is clear, though it follows the same generic query template as the ~45 sibling query_lim* tools, so no differentiation beyond 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?

'pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list' gives explicit selection guidance for the two primary modes. It stops short of explaining how skip/limit/sort/fields interact or when to prefer this over other resources, but the core routing is clear.

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