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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's mode-switching guidance is genuinely useful but largely duplicated by the id parameter's own schema text ('omit to query many'), and it says nothing about result caps, clamping, or return shape beyond what the schema states.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the branching rule placed where it is immediately actionable. No filler or redundancy.

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, the description carries some burden for explaining what comes back, and it does not clarify the shape of a single-record result versus a list result, nor pagination behavior (only limit defaults are covered in the schema). For a 6-parameter collection query tool it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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. The description restates the id/query split without adding syntax, default, or filtering semantics beyond the schema (only the undescribed 'fields' parameter is left unaddressed in both places).

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 (LimSearchSite records), and immediately splits the behavior into two modes: single-record fetch by id and filtered-list query. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but the resource noun is distinct enough among the many query_lim* siblings to identify the target collection.

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?

Gives a clear decision rule for the two operating modes: pass id for one record, query for a filtered list. It does not address when to choose this collection over a related one (e.g., query_limsearchcompany) or mention paging expectations, so it falls short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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