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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the id-vs-query mode distinction, which is genuine behavioral context. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or response shape, which matters for a list-style tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the two usage modes. Zero filler; 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 annotations covering the safety profile and 83% schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. Minor gaps around pagination limits and return shape are partially mitigated by the limit parameter's own schema description.

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 skip, sort, limit, and query semantics well. The description only reinforces the id/query split and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LimPhoneDirectory records'), so the agent knows exactly what entity it operates on. However, with 50+ sibling query_lim* tools, it does nothing to differentiate itself beyond the resource name embedded in both the name and description.

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 explicitly lays out the two invocation modes: 'pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list.' This tells the agent which parameter selects which behavior. It lacks any when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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