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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, lowering the bar. The description adds the dual id-vs-query mode, but discloses nothing about pagination, default page size, sort behavior, or return shape — all of which live only in the schema or nowhere.

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 with zero filler, and the two-mode instruction arrives before any detail. It is perhaps too terse for a six-parameter tool, but no sentence 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?

With no output schema and only a readOnly annotation, the description needs to carry return-shape and pagination context, and it does not. An agent knows how to call it but not what it gets back or how id and query interact.

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 the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, and query. The description only re-states the id/query distinction that the schema itself spells out ('Fetch one record by id; omit to query many') and adds no syntax or interaction details beyond it.

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 specific verb (Find) and resource (LimRbkLink records) and distinguishes the two lookup modes. It does not differentiate itself from the ~70 identically-shaped query_* siblings (e.g. query_limrbkip, query_limmcplink), so an agent still relies on the resource name alone to pick correctly.

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 mode selection, so an agent knows the two usage shapes. It offers no when-not guidance, no named alternatives, and no statement of what happens if both id and query are supplied.

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