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 description doesn't need to reiterate safety. It adds value by stating that the tool returns matching records, which aligns with the annotations and provides expected output behavior.

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 three sentences, all front-loaded with the core purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description is largely complete given the tool's simplicity (1 param, good annotations, output schema). It explains the broad search scope and return types. Missing explicit mention of SOSL format, but the schema examples compensate.

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 the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. The schema examples show SOSL syntax, but the description only mentions 'keyword,' which is slightly imprecise. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool searches across Salesforce objects by keyword and returns records from multiple object types like Accounts, Contacts, and Leads. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_query (for SOQL) and sf_get_record (for single records) by emphasizing broad keyword searches.

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 advises 'Use for broad keyword searches,' providing clear context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling tools (e.g., sf_query, sf_get_record) imply that narrow or specific queries are better handled by them.

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