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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's main added value is confirming the two access modes. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination defaults, or what an empty filter returns — though the schema covers the limit clamping and skip 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 that front-loads the resource and then the two operating modes. There is no redundant restatement of the name and no filler wording.

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 six parameters, a nested query object, and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: the unexplained 'fields' parameter and the shape of returned records are left entirely to inference. It does not mislead, but an agent must open the schema to call this confidently with projections.

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 most parameters are already documented, including id, skip, sort, limit, and the MongoDB-style query example. The description only echoes the id/query distinction and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 the exact resource (LimSubscriptionState), and it explicitly splits behavior into single-record fetch by id versus filtered list via query. The entity name carries the sibling differentiation against the many other query_lim* tools, though nothing in the prose reinforces that distinction.

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 states the selection rule clearly: pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list. That is enough to choose between the tool's two modes, but there is no guidance on when this entity is the right target versus related siblings like query_limsuborder, and no exclusions.

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