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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It discloses the id-vs-query branching behavior, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination limits, default page size, or result shape beyond what the schema already carries.

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 zero filler; the two-mode structure is stated up front and every word earns its place.

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 6-parameter read tool with a nested MongoDB-style query object and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation modes but leaves the nested query capabilities and return format entirely to the schema. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition but thin given the tool's flexibility.

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% (high), so the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, and query semantics well. The description reinforces the id/query distinction but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LimMail records') and immediately distinguishes its two operating modes (single record via id vs. filtered list via query). It is clear enough to separate from the flood of sibling query_lim* tools since the resource name is unique, though it offers no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 gives mode-selection guidance ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which tells the agent how to invoke it two different ways. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the other 46 query_lim* siblings or when not to use it.

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