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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the id-vs-query branching behavior, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, or what happens with the nested filter — all relevant for a read tool with 6 params.

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 well-formed sentence with the primary access mode front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves structure for only the two headline parameters.

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?

With 6 parameters, a nested query object, and no output schema, the description covers only the id/query split. It leaves pagination semantics (skip/limit clamping, default 50) and the return shape entirely to the schema, which is mostly but not fully documented.

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 (with a MongoDB-style example). The description only echoes the id/query distinction, adding no format, syntax, or default information beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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") and resource ("LimPublicApi records") and even splits the two access modes: id for one record, query for a list. It does not differentiate this entity from the ~55 sibling query_lim* tools beyond the resource name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives mode-selection guidance ("pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list"), which is implied usage rather than explicit when/when-not. There is no guidance on choosing this tool over any sibling or on prerequisites.

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