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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It contributes the dual-mode behavior (one record vs. list), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, default/clamped limits, or the shape of results - all of which the schema only partially covers.

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 zero filler, front-loading the resource and then the two operating modes. Every clause earns 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?

Six parameters including a nested MongoDB-style filter object, no output schema, and roughly fifty identically shaped sibling tools. The description covers only the id/query split and never says what a result looks like or how the nested query object behaves, which leaves real gaps for an agent relying on the description alone.

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, query, skip, sort, limit and fields with useful detail including clamping and defaults. The description's id/query explanation largely restates what the schema says ('Fetch one record by id; omit to query many'), adding little new meaning - the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb (Find) and resource (LimSearchCompany records) and even splits the tool into its two modes: single-record by id and filtered list by query. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings only implicitly, via the resource name shared by every query_lim* tool, so it doesn't do any active sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly routes the caller between the two usage modes: pass id for one record, query for a filtered list. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, and no mention of when a different query_lim* tool would be the better choice, so it stops short of a 5.

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