open_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one behavior not in annotations (that it triggers a browser launch), but says nothing about whether it returns a URL, blocks, or errors when no org is authenticated.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no padding. It is arguably too terse for a tool with side effects, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With annotations covering safety and no output schema to reconcile, the definition is minimally adequate for a browser-launch tool. It still omits what the caller gets back and how it behaves against a default vs explicit org, which matters given the targetOrg parameter.

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 reported top-level coverage is 0% (the wrapper 'input' object is undescribed), but the nested schema actually documents recordId, targetOrg defaulting behavior, and forceSystemBrowser in detail, so the structured data carries the semantics. The description itself adds no parameter information at all, so it earns only the baseline.

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 gives a specific verb (opens) and resource (a Salesforce record) plus the mechanism (in a browser), which is enough for an agent to know what happens. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling tool named 'open', so a sibling-aware agent gets no help here.

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 versus the sibling 'open' tool, versus querying/displaying a record, or any prerequisite (e.g. needing a logged-in org). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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