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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds almost no behavioral context: nothing about pagination defaults, clamping behavior, the sensitive nature of password-entry data, or what is returned. It essentially restates the operation rather than disclosing traits.

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. The mode-selection rule is stated first and the sentence ends without redundancy.

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 optional parameters, nested query objects, and no output schema, an agent can call the tool from the schema alone, but the description omits how the parameters compose (e.g., skip/limit/sort interplay), what fields controls, and any return-shape expectation. Adequate but with clear gaps for a query tool of this shape.

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, skip, sort, limit, and query with meaningful text (including the 1-500 limit clamp and '-' descending prefix). The description's id-vs-query remark largely duplicates the id parameter's own schema description, adding little beyond the baseline.

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?

Specific verb (Find) plus a named resource (LimPasswordEntry) and an explicit dual-mode scope: single record by id vs filtered list by query. The resource name alone distinguishes it from the ~55 sibling query_lim* tools, but the description never contrasts itself with those siblings or explains why one would query password entries.

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 clearly states the two invocation modes ("pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list"), which is genuine usage guidance for choosing between id and query. However it offers no when-to-use context relative to the many sibling query 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.