describe_object_definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination', which is a useful behavioral trait, but fails to cover other critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the lack of 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get metadata and field information') and includes a key behavioral trait ('with pagination') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and structured for clarity.

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 complexity of a Salesforce object description tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or how pagination works in practice. Without annotations or an output schema, the description does not provide enough context for effective tool use, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it does not explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value from the description.

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 'Get' and the resource 'metadata and field information for a Salesforce object', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_avail_objects', which might list objects rather than describe them, leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_avail_objects' or 'get_record'. It mentions pagination, which hints at usage for large datasets, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context without clear direction.

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