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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the id-vs-query branching. It says nothing about result ordering, the 50-record default cap, or whether an unmatched id returns null versus an error — details that matter for a lookup tool.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the resource and immediately explaining the two call patterns. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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?

With six parameters (including a nested MongoDB-style query object) and no output schema, the definition plus the rich schema is nearly sufficient to call the tool correctly. The residual gap is the shape of the response (single object vs array, empty-result behavior), which nothing else documents.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents id, query, skip, sort, limit (with clamping), and fields. The description only restates the id/query distinction and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides — the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('LimObjective records'), and explicitly covers both operating modes: single record by id, filtered list by query. The resource name in the tool name plus the description distinguishes it from the many sibling query_lim* tools, though it never names or contrasts a sibling directly.

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?

Gives clear mode-selection guidance: pass 'id' for one record, 'query' for a filtered list, and the schema reinforces this with 'omit to query many'. It stops short of exclusions or alternatives (e.g., what to do for cross-resource lookups), but the context needed to pick a mode is explicit.

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