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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the id-vs-query duality but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination defaults, or what the returned records contain beyond the word 'records'.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately presents the two modes. There is no filler, though 'LimPartnerApplication records' plus a slightly redundant mode restatement keeps it from being maximally tight.

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-only query tool with a nested MongoDB-style filter and no output schema, the schema carries most of the load and the description covers the key mode distinction. What is missing — return shape, default sort behavior, and the fields projection — is modest and partly inferable from the schema.

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?

At 83% schema description coverage, the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, and query. The description's 'pass id for one record' mostly restates the schema's 'omit to query many', and it adds nothing about the undocumented fields parameter or sort syntax, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LimPartnerApplication records'), and splits the behavior into two clearly labeled modes: single-record lookup by id and filtered list via query. It does not name a sibling, but the resource name in the title distinguishes it from the parallel query_lim* family.

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 tells the agent which argument selects which mode ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which is useful invocation guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over another or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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