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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what happens when every parameter is omitted (the schema implies a default 50-record page), whether unscoped queries are expensive, or how the result set is shaped. For a tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, this is thin.

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 calling modes. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, zero-required, nested-filter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary calling decision but not the default behavior (what an empty call returns), pagination implications, or result ordering. Adequate to invoke correctly, but it leaves the agent guessing about the no-argument case.

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 meaningfully; the description only reinforces the id-vs-query duality. The undocumented fields array is left unexplained in both places, and no filtering syntax or field-selection semantics are added beyond the schema's own example.

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 (LimLink records), and splits the operation into two explicit modes: single-record fetch via id and filtered list via query. The resource is unambiguous against the ~80 sibling query_lim* tools because only this one targets LimLink records, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It gives mode-selection guidance (pass id for one record, query for a filtered list), which tells the agent how to choose between two calling patterns. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over a sibling resource tool, and no exclusions or prerequisites, so usage is implied rather than fully framed.

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