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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds that id returns one record and query returns a filtered list, which clarifies result cardinality, but it omits pagination behavior, sorting, rate limits, and return field details. With annotations present, 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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently covers the two primary access patterns without unnecessary detail.

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 query object and no output schema, the description covers the two main access modes but leaves pagination defaults, return shape, and field selection unaddressed. The schema carries most parameter detail, but the description could better explain the tool's overall behavior.

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 limit defaults, sort syntax, skip, and fields. The description only echoes the schema's own explanations for id and query, adding no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the structured fields provide.

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 states a clear verb ("Find") and resource ("LimCommunityMember records"), and it distinguishes the single-record vs filtered-list modes. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling query_lim* tools beyond the resource name already present in the tool 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 gives implicit usage guidance by explaining that passing id fetches one record and query returns a filtered list. It does not say when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling query tools or name any alternative, so the guidance is limited to internal mode selection.

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