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 only the mode distinction (single vs list), which is thinly behavioral; it says nothing about authorization scope, result caps, or pagination interactions between skip/limit, so it goes only slightly beyond the annotation.

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, and the primary usage decision (id vs query) is stated first. It is perhaps overly terse given a 6-parameter, nested-object tool, but nothing is 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 tool with 6 parameters, a nested MongoDB-style query object, and no output schema, the description covers the core calling pattern but leaves the 'fields' projection parameter completely undocumented in both schema and description, and says nothing about return shape or sort/limit defaults.

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 id, skip, sort, limit, and query in reasonable detail. The description's mention of id/query mirrors what the schema already states and adds no format or syntax detail (e.g., query operator support). 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a named resource ('LimParentCode records') and explicitly splits the two operating modes (single record by id vs. filtered list). It does not explain what a LimParentCode domain entity actually is, so an agent must infer it from the name alone, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 conditional guidance for the tool's two internal modes ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which is genuinely useful routing. However, it offers no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the ~55 sibling query_lim* tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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