salesforce_soql_query

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is not a safe read-only operation. The description adds some context by mentioning routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and scoping under JWT/tenant/company, but it does not explain why a 'soql_query' action may be destructive or what side effects might occur. There is no direct contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by routing context and an Args section. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool and every sentence earns its place, though brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and usage detail.

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?

Given the large set of Salesforce query/report/bulk siblings and the destructiveHint annotation, the description is under-specified. It gives no way to choose this over alternatives, no warning about side effects, and no concrete detail on how to formulate a SOQL objective in message/inputs. The output schema may cover results, but the input semantics and safety implications remain ambiguous.

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 high-level meaning not present in the schema: 'message' is described as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not go far enough to explain what keys or values should go into 'inputs' or how the parameters relate to constructing a SOQL query.

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 specifies a verb ('Run') and a resource ('the salesforce domain agent action `soql_query`'), but it never explicitly states that this action executes SOQL queries against Salesforce data. It relies on the name/action name to convey the core purpose and does not differentiate it from the many Salesforce siblings such as salesforce_bulk_query_create or salesforce_passthrough.

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 description only explains that it routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is an implementation detail rather than selection guidance. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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