connector_salesforce_bulk_query_status

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that the effect must be read, that routing is governed, and that Spring verifies the effect. However, it does not explain what the status result means or how polling behaves, and the mention of 'resuming a write' in a read-only tool is confusing.

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 short, scannable, and the argument list is organized. There is minimal fluff; the main cost is that the opening sentence conveys little beyond the tool name.

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 7-parameter generic connector wrapper, the description leaves the essential 'arguments' contract undocumented and does not place the tool in the lifecycle of its sibling tools (create, status, results). The output schema exists, so return values are less critical, but the invocation semantics are not complete enough for reliable selection and correct argument construction.

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 shoulders most of the burden for parameter meaning. It gives minor semantics for each field, but the core 'arguments' parameter is described only as 'JSON string of arguments' with no explanation of what keys or values the bulk query status operation needs, such as a query ID. This is not enough to construct a correct call.

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 opens by naming 'Salesforce connector operation bulk_query_status' and the platform tool, but it never states what the operation actually does (e.g., check the status of a Salesforce bulk query job). With title null, this is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds little concrete purpose that a model could act on.

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?

There is no guidance about when to select this tool over related siblings such as salesforce_bulk_query_status or connector_salesforce_bulk_query_create. The phrase 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority' is a routing constraint, not a usage decision rule.

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