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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description needn't restate it. Beyond annotations it adds only the id-vs-query branching, with nothing about pagination behavior, default result size, or what a filtered list returns — modest added value over structured fields.

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 that still encodes the key branching rule. Nothing to trim.

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 6 params, a nested Mongo-style filter, and 83% schema coverage, the description covers the essential call decision (id vs. query). With no output schema an agent might want a hint on result shape or pagination, but the schema carries the rest adequately.

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 skip, sort, limit, and query are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the id-omitted-means-list semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; this is the expected baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (LimGame records), and distinguishes the two operating modes (single-record by id vs. filtered list via query). The resource name alone differentiates it from the many query_lim* siblings, so no further sibling disambiguation is needed.

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 tells the agent which mode to use: pass id for one record, use query for a filtered list. It doesn't cover when *not* to use it or how it relates to sibling query tools, but for a read-only resource-scoped lookup the mode selection is the main decision point.

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