sf_get_account

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly states 'Retrieve', suggesting a read-only operation, and mentions the additional data returned (opportunity count, lead count). However, it does not mention required permissions, error handling for missing IDs, data freshness, or whether the tool modifies state. Adequate for a simple retrieval but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 10 words, containing all essential information without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a functional overview. However, it lacks details on the response format (other account fields returned) and does not explicitly state that the id is required (though the schema does). Slightly more context would improve completeness.

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 input schema is fully described (100% coverage) with a clear description of the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'a Salesforce account', specifying that it includes 'open opportunity count and lead count'. This distinguishes it from other retrieval tools like sf_get_contact or sf_get_lead, making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.

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 implies use for retrieving account details with related counts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as sf_run_soql or other account-focused tools. The purpose is clear, but the lack of exclusion criteria or context for selection lowers the score.

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