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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that the description adds two genuinely useful behaviors: creation is limited to objects the run-as user can create (permission scoping), and pricing is charged per call but waived on failure. Not stated: whether a failed call is atomic or leaves partial state, or what is returned.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the cost information is duplicated ('$0.001.' immediately followed by 'Costs $0.001 per call; nothing if it fails.'). That redundancy wastes one of only two sentences.

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 a nested 'fields' object fully documented in the schema and no output schema, most of the burden is lifted. However, the description never says what comes back (a record Id, presumably) or how to handle a partially valid field set, which matters for a create 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 100%, with both 'object' and 'fields' documented including an example payload and a 1-50 property bound. The description only echoes 'with the fields given', adding nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Make a record of any object' plus the scoping condition 'the run-as user may create'. An agent can tell it is a write path into an arbitrary Salesforce object, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with salesforce_update or salesforce_get.

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?

There is a hint of applicability ('any object the run-as user may create') but no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to the sibling write tool salesforce_update or to upsert semantics. The agent must infer that this is for new records only.

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