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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds the single-record vs filtered-list distinction but says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, or return shape beyond what the schema and annotations imply.

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 disambiguates the two modes. No waste, nothing to trim.

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 no output schema, the description plus the well-covered schema give the agent enough to call it correctly. It could still note default result limits or field projection, but those are minor for this tool class.

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?

With 83% schema coverage, the schema already documents skip, sort, limit, query and id thoroughly (including clamping behavior). The description only restates the id/query semantic, adding little beyond what is structured. 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 (LimMusicCollection records) and clarifies the two operating modes (id for one, query for a list). It is clear on its own, but offers nothing to distinguish it from the 47 parallel query_lim* siblings beyond the resource name.

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 when to use id versus query, which is the key routing decision within this tool. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over any sibling tool or discuss prerequisites.

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