salesforce_list_opportunities

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

Annotations mark this tool with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description merely says "Run the salesforce domain agent action" without noting any side effects, mutation risk, or why a listing action is flagged destructive. The mention of JWT/tenant/company scoping adds auth context, but it does not disclose the behavioral traits an agent needs to invoke this safely.

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, front-loaded with the core action name, and contains no obvious filler. The argument syntax section is compact and easy to scan, though it sacrifices useful content for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema and no required parameters, the description does not give the agent enough semantic context to know what result to expect or how to construct a meaningful message/inputs payload. It is a generic dispatcher wrapper without domain specifics, which is incomplete for a tool that should list Salesforce opportunities.

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 carries the full burden for explaining the two parameters. It only says message is a "free-text objective" and inputs is an "Optional JSON string of structured inputs," with no detail on expected keys, formats, examples, or how to express an opportunity-listing objective. This is minimally helpful but far from sufficient.

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 states it "Run the salesforce domain agent action `list_opportunities`," which identifies the exact action but does not explain what listing opportunities actually does or returns. The resource is only implied by the tool name, and the description does not differentiate it from salesforce_get_opportunity, salesforce_list_accounts, or other salesforce siblings beyond naming.

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 only contextual statement is about routing "through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope," which describes mechanism, not usage conditions. There is no mention of when not to use it or what sibling should be preferred.

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