Describe Object Schema

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context about the response content (fields, child relationships, record types) and the effect of fieldsOnly, which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't detail error behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only metadata call this is sufficient.

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 compact, with a purpose/usage sentence followed by parameter examples. It is well-prioritized: the core use case is front-loaded, and the parameter details are clearly separated. No wasted words, though it could be even more structured with bullet points.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core aspects: what it does, when to use it, what parameters mean, and what the response includes. Minor gaps like response size limits or error handling are not critical for this metadata retrieval tool.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters with examples (objectApiName) and a detailed explanation of fieldsOnly. The description repeats essentially the same information with slightly less detail, so it adds marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for 100% schema coverage.

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 tool retrieves schema metadata for a Salesforce object via the REST Describe API, listing specific content (fields, child relationships, record types). This is distinct from sibling tools focused on creating objects, querying records, or managing metadata, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: call this before querying/creating records on unfamiliar objects, or when users ask about existing fields. It also explains when to use fieldsOnly for a lighter response. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so a small deduction from 5.

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