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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation; the description adds only the dual-mode behavior. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default result counts, or the shape of what comes back. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the resource and then the two modes. It is efficient, though it could have used a second short clause to state what the call returns.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential mode split but leaves return shape and result-count behavior implicit. Annotations plus the richly documented schema fill most of the remaining gap, so it is serviceable but not complete.

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%, so the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, and query in detail. The description restates the id-versus-query distinction without adding syntax, format, or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description names a specific verb ("Find") and resource (LimGameProject records) and distinguishes the two retrieval modes: single record by id versus filtered list via query. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from siblings like query_limaccount, which target a different resource. It stops short of 5 because it never states the domain or scope of the collection.

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 does give mode-selection guidance: pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list. It offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or indication of when a different tool would be preferable. Usage is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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