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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's remaining burden is light. It adds the dual-mode behavior (id overrides list-style querying) but is silent on what happens if both id and query are supplied, on pagination defaults, and on result shape. Useful but thin 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 waste that puts the two usage modes first. It is efficient, though slightly compressed for an agent that must decide how id interacts with query.

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 a nested filter object and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation choice but not the return shape, the meaning of 'fields', or precedence when id and query co-occur. Adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want filled.

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% and the schema itself documents id, skip, sort, limit, and the MongoDB-style query filter, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting. The description only restates the id-vs-query relationship and adds nothing about fields, sort syntax, or filter operators beyond what is already structured.

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 specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LimPaymentOrder records') and cleanly splits the tool into two modes: single-record by id and filtered list by query. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many similarly named siblings such as query_limpaytransaction or query_limsuborder, but the resource name in the description carries that differentiation adequately.

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 the in-tool selection rule ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which is useful mode guidance. It gives no exclusions or pointers to adjacent tools for related payment-adjacent data, so usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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