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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description's 'Find' is consistent with that. Beyond confirming read semantics it discloses nothing: no pagination behavior, no default projection, no note that out-of-range limits are clamped, all of which would be genuinely useful context.

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 that states the resource and both access modes with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the key branching decision comes first.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema and 83% schema coverage, the description plus schema give an agent enough to invoke it correctly. The nested MongoDB-style query object is documented in the schema; only minor gaps (default projection, result shape hints) remain.

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, query, limit, sort and skip in detail (including the 1-500 clamp and default of 50). The description only names the id/query distinction, which the schema already covers, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 ('LimPayLink records'), and explicitly distinguishes the two access modes (single record by id vs filtered list). With ~70 near-identical sibling query_* tools, the resource name is the only differentiator available, and the description surfaces it clearly, though it adds nothing beyond the name itself.

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?

Explains how to select between the two invocation modes ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which is real usage guidance. It offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or pointers to alternative tools, and largely restates what the id/query schema descriptions already say.

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