sf_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context (searches across all domains, respects active-domain restrictions, returns specific fields), but it does not explain match semantics, ordering, pagination, or how domain/docType filters interact with the search. For a read-only search tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and every clause adds context. It is concise without being under-specified, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: scope, conditional domain behavior, and return fields. It does not detail result count limits or enrichment possibilities, but those are partly covered by parameter defaults. The mention of domain restriction ties well into the sibling domain-management tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the mention of returning titles/domains/descriptions is output-oriented rather than parameter semantics. No penalty is warranted since the schema already documents each parameter clearly.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Salesforce documentation domains'), and clarifies the return payload (titles, domains, descriptions). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling sf_semantic_search, but it does convey the cross-domain scope and the active-domain restriction behavior.

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 implies usage for finding documentation topics and mentions conditional behavior ('When domain restriction is active'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sf_semantic_search or other search-like alternatives. No clear exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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