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 bar is lower. The description adds the meaningful behavioral split between single-record and list return shapes, but says nothing about default page size, clamping, sort semantics, or how an empty filter behaves — all behaviors an agent must know before calling.

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, and the primary verb and resource are front-loaded ahead of the mode distinction. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 six-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema query tool the description covers the mode decision but leaves the default call behaviour (no arguments yields a limited, default-sorted page) implicit. The fields projection parameter is also left entirely to the schema, which has no description for it.

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 (including the 1-500 range and default 50), and query with an example filter. The description merely restates the id/query roles and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, which matches the baseline 3.

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) plus the exact resource (LimSystemWidget records) and distinguishes the two access modes: single record by id versus filtered list by query. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the sibling set is a uniform per-entity family where the entity name alone is the differentiator, so an agent can still route 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?

It states the operative branch condition clearly: supply id for one record, omit it and use query for a filtered list. That is real context for choosing a mode, though it offers no exclusions, no guidance on combining id with query/skip/limit, and no pointer to a preferred alternative for full-text-style searching.

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