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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds only the single-vs-list mode distinction, which is largely restated by the id parameter's own schema text. It says nothing about default page size, clamping behavior, result ordering, or what an unfiltered query returns — behavioral context an agent would need for multi-page or broad queries.

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 with the resource first and the mode split front-loaded after the dash; there is no filler or redundancy. It is perhaps overly terse for a six-parameter tool, but every clause carries information.

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 a read-only annotation, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the minimum an agent needs to make a correct call is present. However, the presence of a nested MongoDB-style filter and pagination parameters means the description could reasonably say more about combined-parameter behavior and result-set semantics, which it omits entirely.

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 the MongoDB-style query filter; the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the id/query split, which is the most important semantic decision, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema for sort, fields, or the filter object.

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 a specific resource (LimQrCode records), then distinguishes the two operating modes: single-record fetch via id versus filtered list via query. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling query_* tools by resource name alone, but it does not explicitly contrast its behavior with those siblings beyond the shared query pattern.

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?

The agent is given a direct selection rule: pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list. This maps cleanly onto the two usage modes. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., what happens if both id and query are supplied, or whether an empty query returns everything), so it is clear context rather than explicit 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.