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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's remaining burden is pagination, defaults and ordering behavior. It says nothing about the 50-record default limit, clamping, skip semantics, sort syntax, or projection — all of which exist in the schema and are simply restated rather than explained. The description adds almost no behavior beyond structured fields.

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 the mode switch, with no filler. It is arguably too short rather than padded, but nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter read tool with no output schema and a nested MongoDB-style filter object, an agent still lacks the return shape, the default page size, and any hint about the untyped projection field. The core call pattern is recoverable from the schema, so this is adequate but with real gaps.

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 coverage is 83%, so baseline 3 applies; the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit and query with examples. The description echoes the id/query distinction already spelled out in the schema and leaves the undocumented 'fields' projection parameter entirely unaddressed.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LimQuizParty records') and splits the two operating modes (single record by id vs. filtered list). Among ~70 near-identical query_* siblings, the resource name is the only differentiator, and it is stated plainly, though nothing beyond the name signals this particular entity's domain.

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 implied selection logic between the tool's two modes, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool at all, no mention of alternates, and no note that both id and query populated behaves ambiguously.

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