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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a non-mutating read, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the dual-mode framing but nothing about real behavior: default page size, clamping of limit, sort semantics, or what the result set looks like. It is adequate rather than informative beyond structured fields.

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 the verb, resource and mode split in order of importance. Nothing is padded and nothing needs re-reading.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested MongoDB-style filter object and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return shape (array of records vs. single record) and pagination behavior. Those details live partly in the schema, but the absence of any return-value statement leaves a gap for an agent composing a call.

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 detail. The description only reiterates the id-vs-query distinction already stated in the id parameter's own description, adding no new meaning such as filter syntax limits or field projection behavior.

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 ('LimPayWebhookEvent records'), and explicitly splits the two operating modes: single lookup by id vs. filtered list by query. The entity name alone differentiates it from the query_lim* siblings, so no further sibling routing is needed, but the description stops short of saying what a record contains.

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?

Gives clear selection logic between modes -- 'pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list' -- which is the primary decision an agent faces here. It offers no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. that id and query should not be combined, or how to page results), so it stops at context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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