salesforce_run_report

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful scope context (JWT, tenant, company, dispatcher routing) but does not explain what destructive side effects may occur or what the action can change, leaving an important gap despite the annotations.

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 verb/action, and uses a clear Args section. Every sentence has some purpose, though the content is too thin in substance.

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, the description does not explain what report to request, what inputs the domain-agent action accepts, or how this differs from other Salesforce reporting tools. An agent cannot reliably know when to invoke this tool or what message to provide.

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 gives only vague definitions: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, with no structure, keys, or examples. This is not enough for an agent to construct a valid call for a Salesforce report action.

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 a specific action ('run_report') and resource ('salesforce domain agent'), but it doesn't explain what running this report actually does or produces. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like salesforce_get_pipeline_report or salesforce_pipeline_report, leaving the agent to guess which report-related tool matches the user intent.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no exclusions or fallback tools. The only context is that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, which is an implementation detail rather than a usage criterion.

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