salesforce_get_account

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

The description only adds routing/scoping context ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') but does not disclose actual behavior. With annotations marking readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, an agent could be misled by the 'get_account' name into thinking this is a harmless read operation. No direct contradiction exists, but the description fails to clarify potential 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 compact and has a clear structure: action name, routing context, then argument definitions. It is not bloated, though the routing sentence could be replaced with domain-specific semantics to earn its place better.

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 no required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin for correct invocation. An agent cannot determine what to put in message or inputs to retrieve a specific Salesforce account, and there is no sibling differentiation or behavioral caveat. The presence of an output schema helps, but does not fill the input-semantics gap.

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 carry parameter meaning. It says message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which is generic boilerplate. It does not explain what inputs get_account expects, such as an account ID or any query constraints, leaving the agent guessing.

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's opening line, 'Run the salesforce domain agent action `get_account`', mostly restates the tool name without explaining what the action actually does. It never says it retrieves an account, what fields are returned, or how it differs from sibling tools like salesforce_get_contact or salesforce_list_accounts.

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 sibling list contains many other Salesforce retrieval and domain-agent tools, but the description provides no trigger conditions, exclusions, or comparison to salesforce_list_accounts or salesforce_get_opportunity.

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