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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: the empty-query fallback to recently changed records, the connection prerequisite, and where the error directs the user. Return format remains unspecified.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then fallback behavior, then the downstream linkage. 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 two-param read tool with no output schema, this covers purpose, empty-query behavior, connection prerequisite, and follow-up action. The only gap is any description of returned fields or pagination, which is minor given a read-only search.

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% with an enum on type and a defaulted value, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the 'name' semantics of query and the type options at a high level, but nothing beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 (search/find) and resource (Salesforce opportunities or accounts) plus scope by name. Distinguishes itself from siblings like search_crm_deals and get_account, and the default-when-empty behavior is made explicit.

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?

Gives clear context: search by name, empty query returns recently changed, and explicitly names the downstream pairing with send_flow_to_salesforce. Does not state when to use this instead of search_crm_deals or find_servicenow_records, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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