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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the mode-switching behavior (single vs list), which is useful, but says nothing about default page size, clamping, or sort scope — details the agent only finds by reading the schema.

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 immediately following with the mode split. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 list/get tool with a well-documented six-parameter schema and no output schema, the essentials are covered. However, the description never mentions that `fields` projects the response, that `sort` accepts a '-' prefix, or what a default (no-argument) call returns — all details an agent must discover from the schema.

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 skip, sort, limit (including clamping to 1-500 and the default of 50), query as a MongoDB-style filter, and id. The description adds only the id-vs-query mode relationship. With the schema already doing the heavy lifting, this is the expected baseline.

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 ('LimTravelReview records') plus the two retrieval modes, so the agent can immediately tell what universe of data it touches. Among ~100 identically shaped sibling query tools, the resource name is the only differentiator present, and it is stated clearly; no further sibling differentiation is attempted or needed.

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?

Explicitly maps the two modes of use: 'pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list.' This tells the agent which parameter path to take without opening the schema. It stops short of stating what happens when both are supplied, or that omitting everything returns a default-limited list.

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