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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description is not required to argue that this is a safe read. Beyond that it only implies the result shape differs by mode; it says nothing about default page size, clamping of out-of-range limits, or whether an empty query returns everything.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then the two modes via a parallel "or" construction. It is efficient, though a fragment of it duplicates information the id parameter already carries.

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 collection query tool with no output schema and near-complete parameter documentation, the description covers the essential calling decision. The residual gaps (return shape, what happens when neither id nor query is given, the undocumented fields parameter) are minor rather than blocking.

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 with useful detail. The description's only parameter content (id for one record) repeats the id field's own description and says nothing about the undocumented fields array, so it adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema; 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?

The description names a specific verb ("Find") and resource (LimCommunityRoom) and distinguishes the two retrieval modes: single record by id versus filtered list by query. It does not differentiate from sibling resources, but the sibling set is a flat family of per-collection query tools where the resource name alone is the differentiator.

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 explicitly states the selection rule for the two operating modes (pass id for one record, query for a filtered list), which is the primary decision an agent faces with this tool. It offers no exclusions or note on what to do when neither is supplied, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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