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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description's one genuinely additive fact is "Free" — cost/credit information absent from annotations — but it is repeated verbatim as "Free. Free.", which reads as a copy error and undermines the claim rather than reinforcing it. Nothing is said about permissions, field-level security, or whether inaccessible fields are omitted or null.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource scoping front-loaded, which is the right shape. However, the duplicated terminal "Free. Free." is pure waste and reads as a generation artifact, so the text does not fully earn its length.

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 3 parameters, full schema coverage and complete annotations, most of the burden is already carried by structured fields. But there is no output schema, so the description could have said what a returned record looks like (flat field map, missing vs null fields) and did not. Adequate, with a clear gap.

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 100% and each of the three parameters carries its own description plus validation patterns. The description restates the object/id pairing and the fields default ("all of them when left out") without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is the right ceiling here.

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?

"One record by its object and id" identifies the resource and the two lookup keys precisely, and "all its fields or the ones named" scopes the payload. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb ("retrieves"), but an agent can still tell this is the single-record fetch as opposed to salesforce_query. No sibling is named as an alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 no statement of when to reach for this versus salesforce_query, salesforce_create, or salesforce_update, all of which live in the same namespace. The only condition implied is that you must already know the object and id. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance.

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