salesforce_describe_object

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds useful context about the returned metadata content (fields, relationships, field properties) but does not disclose behavior such as response size, invalid object handling, or permissions. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concrete examples. No filler or redundancy, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only describe tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, gives valid object examples, and is backed by the readOnlyHint annotation. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently conveys the expected metadata result.

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 schema already documents the single objectName parameter with examples at 100% coverage. The description reinforces the parameter with Account/Case examples but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed schema metadata including all fields, relationships, and field properties'). The examples clarify that this is about object structure, not data records, which clearly distinguishes it from query/search/DML siblings.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need object schema metadata. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over query_records, search_objects, or manage_object, and it provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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