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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation safe and read-only. The description adds output cardinality (single record vs list), which is behavioral context beyond the annotation, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting, or return format details.

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 that states the purpose and the two usage modes with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the rich schema, read-only annotation, and absence of an output schema, the description is sufficient to orient an agent. The only minor gap is that the fields parameter lacks a schema description and is not mentioned, but the core query modes are covered.

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 explains most parameters in detail. The description only references id and query, adding little semantic depth beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (LimEditProject records), and clarifies the two query modes (id for one record, query for a filtered list). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the unique resource name, 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?

Explicitly says to pass id for a single record or query for a filtered list, giving clear context for choosing between the two main modes. It lacks when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the core usage is well covered.

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