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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only profile, lowering the bar. The description restates the dual-mode behavior, which is also conveyed by the id schema description ('Fetch one record by id; omit to query many'), so it adds little genuinely new behavioral context such as pagination or result ordering semantics.

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 immediately stating the two operating modes. 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?

For a read-only query tool with a well-documented six-parameter schema and no output schema requirement, the description covers the essential mode distinction. It is adequate, though it could note the default limit/clamping behavior for a fully self-contained definition.

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 documents most parameters (skip, sort, limit, query, id) in detail. The description only maps id and query to their modes, duplicating schema text, and adds nothing about the undocumented 'fields' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (LimSubOrder records), and clarifies the two access modes: single-record by id or filtered list via query. It is clear, though it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many sibling query_lim* tools, which follow the identical naming 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 description explicitly routes between the two modes: pass id for one record, omit and use query for a filtered list. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated, but for a read-only query tool with parallel siblings, the mode-selection guidance is clear context.

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