sf_suggest_domains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the tool's output ('Returns domain IDs') and how those IDs are used, which is valuable behavioral context. Since this is a non-destructive suggestion tool, these details are sufficient; no rate limits, permissions, or side effects need to be mentioned.

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 core function, and every sentence earns its place. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains the input, the output, and how to use the result, leaving no significant gaps for an AI agent to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the schema already includes rich examples. The tool description's reference to 'what the user is working on' aligns with the schema and adds slight context about the parameter's purpose.

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's function: 'Suggest relevant documentation domains based on a description of what the user is working on.' It uses a specific verb ('suggest') and resource ('documentation domains'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that the returned domain IDs feed into sf_set_active_domains.

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?

It provides an explicit usage directive: 'Use this when the user wants to focus their search on specific Salesforce products or features.' While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context is clear and references the downstream tool (sf_set_active_domains), making the intended scenario obvious.

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