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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered externally. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that the same tool serves both single-fetch and list-query shapes, but says nothing about pagination defaults or result size (left to 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 tight sentence with the resource and both modes front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested MongoDB-style query object and no output schema, the description is minimal but the schema carries most parameter detail. It does not explain the query-object form or the fields projection, so it is 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 high (83%), so the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, and query semantics. The description only echoes the id/query distinction and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, matching 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LimVidComment records'), and distinguishes its two operational modes (single-record by id vs filtered list by query). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling query_* tools beyond the resource name.

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 tells the agent how to choose between the two modes (pass id for one record, query for a filtered list), which is useful mode selection. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any preconditions, leaving usage largely implied.

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