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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's lower bar is met partly by annotations. The description adds the id-vs-query branching behavior, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, clamping, or response shape — all handled in the schema rather than here.

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 that states the resource first and then the two modes. No filler, no repetition of schema fields, nothing that fails to earn 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 six-parameter query tool with a nested MongoDB-style filter object and no output schema, the essentials are covered: the description covers the mode switch while the schema covers pagination, sorting, projection, and filter syntax. Return-shape detail is absent, but for a record-query tool in a uniform family that is a minor omission rather than a blocking gap.

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 semantics (including the 1-500 clamp and default of 50) in more detail than the description does. The description only restates the id/query distinction without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Find LimPublicProfile records") and immediately delineates the two operating modes: single-record fetch by id versus filtered list via query. It cannot differentiate itself from the ~55 sibling query_lim* tools beyond the resource name, but within its homogeneous family the entity and behavior are unambiguous.

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?

"pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list" gives the agent a clear rule for choosing between the two invocation modes, which is the only meaningful selection decision for this tool. It stops short of naming when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, so it is clear 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.