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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a non-mutating read, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds little beyond that: no mention of whether a missing id returns an error or empty result, no pagination behavior narrative, and no note that 'query' filters are MongoDB-style (that detail lives only in 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 front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the two modes immediately after; no filler or redundant restatement. It could have absorbed one more clause (return shape or defaults) without bloating.

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 tool with a nested MongoDB-style filter object and no output schema, the description covers the retrieval model but not the return shape (single object vs. array), default result size, or sort defaults. Adequate to call correctly, but an agent must rely on the schema for most operational detail.

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/query/fields are already documented in structured data. The description's contribution is the id-vs-query mutual-exclusivity framing, which is mildly useful but largely restates the schema's 'omit to query many' for the id parameter.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Find') with a named resource ('LimGameScore records') and states the two access modes (single record by id, filtered list by query). An agent can immediately tell what the tool retrieves, though nothing distinguishes it semantically from the many sibling query_lim* tools beyond the entity name.

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 says to pass 'id' for one record and 'query' for a filtered list, which is the core routing decision for this tool. It stops short of stating when to prefer one mode over the other (e.g. exact-id lookup vs. scanning by status) or what happens when both are supplied.

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