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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing about result shape, whether the filtering is server-side, or pagination behavior — but nothing it says contradicts the read-only annotation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource, then the mode split. Zero filler and the branch condition is readable at a glance.

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?

With 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and a nested query object, the description is thin on what comes back (list vs single object, whether pagination metadata is returned). The schema compensates for parameter detail, but the return contract is undocumented anywhere.

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%, and the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, and query in more detail than the description. The description only re-mentions id and query, adding no semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('LimCreateSiteVisit records'), and explicitly splits the two operating modes (single record by id vs filtered list via query). It does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling family (e.g., query_limcreatesite), but the entity 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?

The 'pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list' phrasing implies the two usage modes and is a reasonable selection rule. However, it gives no guidance on when this entity is the right one versus siblings like query_limcreatesite, and no note on what happens if both id and query are supplied.

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