MCP Salesforce Lite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Execute') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, query result limitations, error handling, or whether this is a read-only or mutating operation. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 executing SOQL queries against Salesforce (which involves syntax, permissions, result handling, etc.), no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important constraints, leaving the agent with inadequate context for proper usage.

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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the single 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema adequately covers the 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 description clearly states the action ('Execute') and target ('a SOQL query against Salesforce'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_records' or 'get_record' which might also query Salesforce data, leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this versus those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_records', 'get_record', and 'list_avail_objects' that likely handle Salesforce data queries, the description offers no context about when SOQL queries are preferred over these other methods, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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