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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=true, which already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the id-vs-query branching but nothing about return format, pagination behavior, default limits, or the nested filter semantics — all of which matter for a list-heavy query tool. With annotations covering only safety, the description leaves most behavioral context undisclosed.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the dual-mode guidance without waste. Nothing could be trimmed without losing signal.

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 filter object and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin — it never indicates the shape of returned records or how the nested query interacts with skip/limit/sort. The schema covers most parameters, but a query tool with an output-less contract would benefit from more.

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 coverage is 83%, well above the coverage threshold where the schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 applies. The description's id/query distinction is already documented in the schema's own param descriptions, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data. The undocumented 'fields' array is not described either.

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 clear verb ('Find') and resource ('LimVidVideo records'), and distinguishes the two access modes (single id vs filtered query). The resource name is specific enough to separate it from sibling tools like query_limvidcomment and query_limvidfollow, though it does not explicitly name a sibling the way the strongest definitions do.

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 gives a conditional on which parameter to use ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which implies usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no statement of when this tool is inappropriate, and no prerequisites for the query path.

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