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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: it says nothing about pagination interplay, field selection, sort behavior, or what a result set looks like, so an agent must infer all of that from the schema.

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 that front-loads the resource and then the two usage modes; nothing is wasted. It is borderline under-specified rather than verbose, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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, read-only query tool with no output schema and a nested MongoDB-style filter, the description is adequate but thin: it never hints at the return shape, the default limit of 50, or how 'fields' projects results. An agent can call it, but must derive behavior entirely from the schema.

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 skip, sort, limit, query, and id semantics. The description only restates the id-vs-query distinction and adds no new meaning (e.g., id precedence over query, or the shape of the fields projection). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the detail.

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 and resource ('Find LimFriendRequest records') and covers both access modes (single by id, filtered list by query). It is clear what the tool does, but nothing in the wording distinguishes it from the 45 sibling query_lim* tools beyond the entity name itself.

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 description gives useful mode-selection guidance ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), so an agent knows how to pick between the two retrieval paths. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related lookups, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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