salesforce_get_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optionally limiting returned fields,' which hints at field selection, but it does not explain default field behavior, error handling (e.g., record not found), authentication requirements, or org selection behavior. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

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, focused sentence that states the operation and the key variation (optional fields). It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and many sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It omits the purpose of the 'org' parameter, does not specify how field selection works, and provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The existence of an output schema covers return structure, but this does not compensate for the lack of usage context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'fields' parameter ('optionally limiting returned fields') but does not explain 'object_type', 'record_id', or 'org'. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond them, leaving key semantics undocumented.

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: 'Retrieve a Salesforce record by ID' uses a specific verb and resource, and adds the optional field limitation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like salesforce_query (which searches) and salesforce_describe_object (which describes schema).

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'by ID' implies usage for direct record retrieval, but there is no mention of when to prefer it over salesforce_query or salesforce_search. The description lacks context for choosing among the many sibling tools.

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