objects_search_object_records

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination behavior, searchAfter semantics, or result structure. It does not contradict annotations, but it provides no extra value beyond what annotations convey.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary content to be useful; it is not 'appropriately sized' because it does not convey the required information for a tool with 6 parameters. Front-loading is present but empty of substance.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and complex search behavior (pagination, searchAfter), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the search mechanism, the meaning of searchAfter, or how results are paginated. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 83% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter insights beyond the schema. The schema descriptions are mostly terse ('Page', 'Page Limit'), but the query parameter has a helpful example. The tool description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 'Search Object Records' states a clear verb and resource, but it is generic and does not clarify what 'Object Records' refers to (custom objects) nor differentiate it from sibling search tools like contacts_search_contacts_advanced or opportunities_search_opportunity. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity to distinguish it from other search tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over objects_get_record_by_id or other search tools. The schema hints at custom objects via schemaKey, but the description itself offers no usage context or exclusions.

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