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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the id-versus-query mode behavior, but says nothing about default result size, pagination interaction with skip/limit, or what happens when id and query are both present. Useful but thin beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately states both modes. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the mode split is expressed in the most compact form possible.

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 optional parameters, a nested filter object, and no output schema, the description is adequate for the family's uniform pattern but omits edge behavior an agent may need: the result when no arguments are given, precedence when id and query coexist, and any indication of the record shape returned. The per-parameter schema descriptions cover most of the rest.

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% and each of the five documented parameters already carries a description, including limit clamping and the '-' descending sort prefix. The description only reinforces the id/query relationship and adds no format or precedence detail for the nested MongoDB-style filter or the fields projection, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Find) and resource (LimInstalledApp records) and distinguishes the two operating modes: single-record fetch via id and filtered list via query. It does not differentiate against the many sibling query_lim* tools beyond the entity name, but for a uniform family of per-entity query tools the entity name is the meaningful differentiator.

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 argument selects which mode ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which is the main routing decision for this tool. It stops short of stating what happens when neither id nor query is supplied, or when both are supplied, and it names no alternatives.

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