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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the id-vs-query behavioral split, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result limits, or what an empty query returns. Adequate but thin against a 6-parameter query tool.

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 that front-loads the action and the mode-selection rule. No padding or redundancy.

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?

With 6 parameters, a nested query object, a fields projection array, and no output schema, the description covers only the id/query fork. Projection, sorting, and pagination behavior rely entirely on the schema. Just barely sufficient but leaves real gaps for a complex list tool.

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 id, skip, sort, limit, and query with meaningful detail (including the 1-500 clamp and '-' descending prefix). The description restates the id/query distinction but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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) and resource (LimWalletCard records), and distinguishes the two operational modes: single-record lookup by id versus filtered list via query. This is clear, though the sibling namespace is differentiated only by the resource name inherent to the tool, not by any explicit contrast.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent which parameter selects which behavior: 'pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list.' That is clear usage context for the two modes. It stops short of naming when-not conditions or listing alternative tools.

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