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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default limits, or what a returned record looks like, leaving the annotation to carry the load.

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 leads with the primary retrieval pattern. Every clause earns its place.

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 6 params and 83% schema coverage plus no output schema, the description covers the essential calling patterns. It is adequate, though it omits any note on what fields a LimPhoneCall record contains or return volume.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, query, and fields including the '-' descending convention and clamping. The description only restates the id-vs-query split already present in the schema, adding no parameter meaning beyond it.

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 clear verb 'Find' plus resource 'LimPhoneCall records' and distinguishes two retrieval modes (single by id vs filtered list). However, it does nothing to differentiate this resource from the dozens of near-identical sibling query_lim* tools, so an agent gets no help distinguishing it from query_limphonecontact or query_limcall.

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?

Clearly states the two usage modes: 'pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list,' which routes the caller between the id and query paths. It offers no exclusions or guidance on when to prefer a sibling tool, so context is clear but alternatives are absent.

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