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 the single-vs-many mode split, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, clamping behavior, return format, or query limitations. With annotations carrying the heavy behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds some value but not much beyond the structured fields.

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 waste. It packs the core purpose and the two operational modes into one clear clause.

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 query tool with 6 parameters, a nested query object, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return-shape and pagination context that would help an agent call it correctly, relying almost entirely on the schema and readOnly annotation.

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 most parameters are documented in the schema itself (skip, sort, limit, query examples). The description only reinforces the id-vs-query distinction already present in the schema, adding little parameter meaning beyond what is structured.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('Find') and resource ('LimMusicTrack records'), and distinguishes the two retrieval modes (single record by id vs filtered list by query). It does not name or contrast any sibling query_lim-* tool, but the entity name itself differentiates it from the many other query tools.

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 a clear conditional: use id to fetch one record, use query for a filtered list. That is actionable usage guidance, though it stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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