salesforce_describe_object

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only metadata operation and details the return structure, but it does not disclose potential errors, permission requirements, API limitations, or explicitly confirm that no data is modzed. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-organized with a concise summary, an Args section, and a structured Returns list. The only minor issue is slight redundancy between the opening summary and the Returns section, but overall every part is useful and front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema already present, the description properly covers the parameter and the expected return contents. It does not add sibling-tool routing guidance or error-case context, but the basic calling contract is complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the parameter semantics must come from the description. The Args section fully defines 'sobject' as an SObject type and provides concrete examples ('Account', 'Contact', 'Lead', 'Opportunity'), leaving no ambiguity for the single required parameter.

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 opening sentence uses a clear verb and resource: 'Get metadata for a Salesforce SObject.' The list of returned components (fields, relationships, record types) makes it distinct from siblings like salesforce_list_objects and salesforce_get_object_fields, so an agent can immediately tell what it does.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as get_object_fields, list_objects, or query. There are no 'use this when' or 'instead use' statements, so the agent must infer the intended placement among the many sibling tools.

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