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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's remaining burden is lighter. It adds the id-vs-query access branching but says nothing about pagination defaults, result shape, or how nested query filters behave.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the resource and then the two usage modes. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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, well-documented query tool with no output schema, this covers the essential routing logic. Pagination and sort semantics live in the schema, so the description is nearly complete, though it could note the nested-query structure.

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 the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, and query. The description echoes the id/query semantics already present in the schema and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (LimKanbanBoard records), and distinguishes the single-record vs filtered-list modes. It does not differentiate from the ~48 sibling query_lim* tools beyond the entity name itself, which is inherent to the naming pattern.

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?

Gives clear operative context: pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list. This tells the agent how to choose between the two access modes. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing at alternative tools.

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