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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds useful cardinality context (one record vs. filtered list). It does not disclose pagination behavior, default result counts, sorting semantics, or auth requirements, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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 filler; the two usage modes are presented clearly. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity leaves some behavioral detail unstated rather than being a structural flaw.

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 six-parameter query tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description omits pagination/default-limit behavior, sort semantics, and the fields projection. The schema covers most of this, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, and query. The description merely restates the id/query distinction already present in the schema and adds nothing for the undocumented 'fields' parameter, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('LimDatabase records') and clarifies the two access modes (single record via id, filtered list via query). It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling query_lim* tools, relying on the resource name alone, so it falls short of a 5.

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 conditional guidance: pass id for one record, use query for a filtered list. However, it offers no exclusions or pointers to alternative tools, and says nothing about when to use skip/limit/sort, so it stops short of a 5.

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