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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, and the description adds little beyond it — the id-vs-query branching it states is already spelled out in the schema property descriptions. There is no mention of pagination behavior across the dataset, result ordering defaults, or the shape of what comes back for a non-existent id.

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 well-formed sentence with the primary mode stated first and the alternative immediately after; no filler, no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With six parameters, no enums, a nested MongoDB-style filter object, and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: the schema covers most parameters but the description never explains the return shape an agent should expect, nor how the nested query object behaves. Adequate to invoke, thin for interpreting results.

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 carries the parameter meanings, including the limit clamping and sort '-' prefix convention. The description restates the id/query distinction but adds no new semantics, such as how fields projection interacts with query or whether query and id are mutually exclusive.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource combination ('Find LimGamePresence records') and explicitly splits the two operating modes, single-record fetch by id vs. filtered list via query. The resource name itself separates it from the many query_lim* siblings, though no sibling or boundary is called out in the text.

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 actionable branch guidance: pass id for one record, use query for a filtered list. What is missing is any exclusion or caveat, e.g. what happens if both id and query are supplied, or when to prefer this over another tool for the same resource.

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