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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the dual-mode retrieval behavior, but says nothing about pagination clamps, defaults, or result ordering beyond what the schema already documents.

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 that packages both modes efficiently. Nothing is redundant or wasted.

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 lookup tool with a well-described 6-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage pattern. It is slightly thin on list behavior (pagination, ordering) but the schema carries that burden.

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 explains id, skip, sort, limit, and query semantics in detail. The description only reinforces the id-vs-query distinction and adds no new parameter meaning; the 'fields' array is left undocumented in both places.

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 ('LimMusicFollow records') and describes both operating modes (single record by id, filtered list by query). It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling query_lim* tools beyond the resource name, but the resource name is self-evidently distinct.

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 clear mode-selection guidance ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which tells the agent how to choose between the two entry paths. It offers no context on when this tool is preferable to other tools or any exclusions, leaving usage implied.

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