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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the dual-behavior distinction (one record vs filtered list), which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default result count, or return shape, so it stops at a moderate 3.

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 tight sentence with the primary capability front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity leaves several parameters and behaviors unaddressed rather than earning extra credit.

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 no output schema, the description covers both access modes. But the 'fields' parameter has no schema description and no description compensation, and pagination/default behavior is left entirely to the schema. Reasonably complete but with a noticeable 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%, so the schema already documents most parameters (including id, limit, skip, sort, query). The description only mirrors the id/query distinction the schema already makes and adds nothing for skip, sort, limit, or the undocumented 'fields' array. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LimDoc records'), and the name itself carries the resource that distinguishes it from the long family of sibling query_* tools. It also clarifies the two operating modes (single record vs filtered list). It does not, however, explain what a LimDoc record is or differentiate explicitly from siblings, so it lands at a clear but not exceptional 4.

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 gives mode-selection guidance — pass 'id' for one record, 'query' for a list — which is useful implied usage. But there is no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no exclusion or alternative-tool routing (e.g., when to prefer this over other query tools). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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