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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-destructive read, so the description only needs to add context. It does disclose the dual return shape (single record versus list), which is behavioral information beyond the annotation. However, it says nothing about default ordering, default page size, or what is returned when no id or query is given.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the two modes, with zero filler words. Nothing could be removed without losing the mode-selection rule.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision an agent must make. The gaps are the nested MongoDB-style filter's expected operators and the interaction between id and the list parameters, though the schema's own field descriptions mitigate much of this.

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 documents skip, sort, limit and the query filter (including clamping and the '-' descending prefix). The description restates the id-versus-query split, which the id parameter description already says verbatim. That leaves the baseline of 3, with no added detail on the undocumented fields parameter or on how pagination parameters interact with the id mode.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Find') plus the exact resource ('LimOrganization records') and explicitly enumerates the two access modes, single-record by id or filtered list. Its only shortfall is that it never distinguishes itself from other tools; the ~110 siblings all share the identical query_lim* phrasing, so the entity name alone carries the separation.

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 states a clear selection rule: use id to fetch one record, use query for a filtered list. That is actionable mode-selection guidance rather than implied usage. It stops short of any exclusions, such as what happens if both id and query are supplied, or when to prefer this over any alternative.

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