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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating operation, so the description needn't cover safety. It adds the id-vs-query distinction but says nothing about result ordering, default page size, clamping behavior, or what a filtered query returns — all of which sit in the schema rather than here.

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 that opens with the verb and resource, then gives the two modes. No filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, 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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the definition covers the central id-vs-query fork but omits what the returned records look like, how the 'fields' projection affects output, and how filtering interacts with pagination. Adequate to call correctly, but not 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 83%, so skip, sort, limit, and query semantics are already documented at the parameter level; baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces only that id selects a single record and query selects many, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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') plus the resource (LimVisionStat records) and names the two operating modes: single-record fetch by id and filtered list query. This distinguishes the two usages within the tool clearly. Sibling differentiation comes only from the resource name embedded in the tool name, not from anything the description adds.

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?

Provides the key branch condition ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which is the most important routing decision for this tool. However, it gives no exclusions, no guidance on combining or omitting both parameters, and does not point to any alternative tool for other access patterns.

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