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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower, but the description adds essentially no behavior beyond that: no note on result-set size, pagination expectations, filter failure behavior, or what a single-id miss returns. For a generic query surface with no output schema, that is thin.

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, and the two modes are presented in the order an agent would evaluate them. It is nearly optimal for its length, though the terse framing sacrifices some detail.

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 6-parameter, zero-required query tool with a nested MongoDB-style filter object and no output schema, the definition covers the entry point adequately but omits what comes back and how pagination/filtering interact. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining gap is return-shape disclosure, which no other field supplies.

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, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the id-vs-query split and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g., how query composes with sort/limit) beyond the schema; 'fields' has no description in either place.

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') plus the exact resource ('LimEphemeralAccess records') and distinguishes the two access modes (single id vs. filtered list). The only differentiation from the ~100 sibling query_lim* tools is the entity name itself, which is inherent to this naming family, so it stops 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?

The sentence gives conditional guidance for choosing between the two operating modes ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which is useful. It says nothing about when not to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no guidance on combining query/sort/skip/limit for paginated traversal.

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