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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the id-versus-query branching but says nothing about defaults, limits, sorting behavior, or what a missing record yields — all of which live in the schema rather than the prose. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the two modes are presented in the order an agent would decide between them. It is terse to the point of omitting any framing about the record type, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and six optional parameters, the description covers the essential call pattern but leaves pagination, sorting, and result-shape expectations entirely to the schema. It is sufficient to invoke correctly, though not rich.

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 parameters like limit (1-500, clamped), skip, sort (dash prefix), and query (MongoDB-style) are already well documented in the schema. The description only maps id and query to their two modes, adding little beyond the structure.

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 states a clear verb-plus-resource ('Find LimVidDm records') and distinguishes the tool's two operating modes: single-record fetch via id versus filtered list via query. It does not differentiate against the many sibling query_lim* tools, but the mode distinction is specific enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

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 gives mode-level guidance ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which helps the agent choose the right parameter. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over any alternative or any preconditions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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