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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the dual-mode behavior but omits anything on pagination defaults, result caps, or performance characteristics not already implied by 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 compact sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and no wasted text. It is appropriately sized, though it invests its one clause in mode branching rather than disambiguation.

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 generic read/query tool with a well-documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It says nothing about the shape of returned records or what the nested query object supports, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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 semantics. The description only restates id vs query behavior without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Find LimKanbanTemplate records") and distinguishes the two access modes: single-record by id versus filtered list by query. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like query_limkanbanboard, which share the identical query_* 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?

The description explains the internal branching ("pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list"), which is useful mode selection, but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling query_lim* tools or what prerequisites apply.

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