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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds only the two access patterns rather than behavior. It says nothing about pagination defaults, clamping, or result volume, which is exactly the kind of context a read tool should surface.

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, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the mode-selection rule. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 rich per-parameter schema text the description is minimally sufficient, but with no output schema there is no indication of the return shape (single object vs. array), total-count behavior, or default result volume — a gap an agent calling with no id and no query would care about.

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% and the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, query, and fields individually, including the '-' descending prefix and 1-500 clamped limit. The description's mention of id/query is largely redundant with that, so 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LimNotification records') and clarifies the two access modes (single id vs. filtered query). It is clear but does nothing to differentiate this tool from its ~45 identically-shaped query_lim* siblings beyond the resource name that is already in the tool 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?

'Pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list' gives implicit selection guidance between the two primary parameters, but there is no when-to-use/when-not framing, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., that no filters returns all records). Adequate but thin.

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