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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds the useful behavioral distinction between single-record lookup and filtered listing. It does not mention pagination behavior, projection behavior from fields, return shape, or any limits beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with the main access pattern front-loaded and no wasted text. It states the essential usage model without repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers the core invocation model for a filtered-list tool, and annotations plus high schema coverage carry much of the remaining burden. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return shape, and it omits mention of pagination, sorting, and field projection behavior, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 most parameters, including id, skip, sort, limit, and query. The description only reinforces id and query and adds no syntax or semantics for skip, sort, limit, or fields, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, "Find," and names the exact resource, "LimVidProfile," plus the two main access modes: by id or by filtered query. It clearly distinguishes those modes, though it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling query_lim* 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?

It explicitly says to pass id for one record and query for a filtered list, giving clear usage context for the two primary modes. It does not provide exclusions or guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling query tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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