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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it returns object names and labels, which is helpful but not critical. Since annotations cover the behavioral traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, entirely front-loaded with the key action and result. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second states the return and use case. No wasted words.

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 simple listing tool with no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema (indicated but not shown), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 when no parameters exist. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'SObject types' and scopes it to 'your Salesforce org'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_query or sf_describe by focusing on discovering all objects types rather than querying records or describing a single object.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use to discover queryable objects.' While it doesn't list when not to use or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools (e.g., sf_describe for single object details) makes it clear that this tool is for listing all object types, not for other operations.

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