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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and "Find" is consistent with a read-only operation, so no contradiction exists. Beyond that, the description adds no behavioral context such as the default limit of 50, clamping of out-of-range limits, or result ordering, all of which live only in 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 compact sentence with the primary mode (id) stated first and the alternative (query) second, so nothing is wasted. It is slightly under-informative for a six-parameter tool, but not verbose.

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 simple read-only query tool with a well-described schema and readOnlyHint coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The remaining gaps are minor conveniences like pagination defaults and response shape, which the schema or agent conventions can cover.

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 parameters are largely self-documenting and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the id-versus-query distinction but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail (for example, whether query is ignored when id is passed).

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?

Names a specific verb ("Find") and resource (LimVidNote records), and splits the two modes of operation: single-record fetch by id versus filtered list via query. An agent can immediately tell what the tool returns, though it never states that the resource is part of a family of query_* tools.

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 implies the two usage modes through the id-or-query split, which is genuine guidance for choosing between fetch-one and list-many. It does not say when to prefer this over a sibling query tool or what happens if both id and query are supplied.

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