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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds the single-vs-many behavioral split, but says nothing about defaults, clamping, pagination ceilings, or result shape beyond what the schema states.

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 zero padding; the id-first ordering puts the simplest invocation path first.

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 query tool with 83% schema coverage, the description plus schema together give an agent everything needed to call it correctly. Slightly richer context on the resource type or the 'fields' projection parameter would close the remaining 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 coverage is 83% and every parameter except 'fields' is self-documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description only reinforces the id/query relationship, adding no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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 ('LimCreateSite records'), which is enough to distinguish it from the many sibling query_* tools since each names its own resource. It stops short of explaining what a LimCreateSite record is, so an agent with no domain knowledge gets no semantic anchor beyond the type 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 clause 'pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list' explicitly maps two invocation modes to their conditions, which is real routing guidance. It doesn't cover what to do when neither is supplied, or when to prefer this over query_limcreatesitevisit or query_limsite.

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