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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. Beyond mode selection the description adds no behavioral context — no mention of default page size, clamping of limit, sort defaults, or result ordering, all of which live only in the schema field text.

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 and immediately followed by the two usage paths. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Adequate for a read-only lookup: annotations cover safety and the schema covers most parameters. However, with no output schema the description could say more about what records/fields come back, and it offers nothing on query syntax expectations beyond the schema's MongoDB-style example.

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 explains id, skip, sort, limit, and query. The description restates the id-vs-query split that the schema also states, and adds nothing for 'fields', which has no description anywhere.

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 ('LimCredentialRequest records'), and distinguishes the two retrieval modes. The entity name is what separates it from the ~100 sibling query_lim* tools, but the description does not explicitly note that distinction.

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?

Gives clear routing logic: pass 'id' for a single record, use 'query' for a filtered list. It does not cover exclusions, prerequisites, or what to do when both are supplied (the schema's id description says 'omit to query many', which helps).

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