salesforce_describe_object

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds some useful behavioral context about routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, the 'describe_object' name creates an implicit read-only expectation that is left unresolved against destructiveHint=true, and the description does not clarify actual side effects.

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 and uses an Args list, so it is not bloated. But the first sentence is largely a restatement of the tool name, and the routing sentence is generic boilerplate. It is compact but under-informative, earning a middle score rather than a high one.

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 embedded in a huge sibling set, the description does not explain when an agent should use this over related Salesforce tools, what object-specific input is required, or how the domain agent action interprets the free-text message. An output schema exists, so return values need less explanation, but the invocation semantics remain incomplete.

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?

The Args section adds minimal semantics: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' But with schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain what a valid message or inputs object should contain for describe_object, such as which object name to supply and whether to use message or inputs. That guidance is missing.

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 mostly restates the tool name: 'Run the salesforce domain agent action `describe_object`.' It does not explain what describing an object accomplishes, such as retrieving an object's metadata or fields. The routing details add infrastructure context, not functional purpose, and it does not differentiate the tool from Salesforce siblings like salesforce_list_custom_objects or salesforce_soql_query.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual statement, 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope,' describes execution mechanics that apply to every invocation, not selection criteria. No prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario-based guidance is provided.

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