Find Tool

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

The description discloses a non-obvious side effect beyond the annotations: it searches unloaded toolsets and by default loads whichever toolsets contain matches so they become callable immediately. This adds meaningful behavioral context even though annotations already mark the tool as idempotent.

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 tight sentences plus concrete example queries. The key behavior is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without padding.

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 two-parameter discovery tool, the description covers purpose, when to use it, the auto-loading side effect, and query examples. It does not describe the return shape, but that is not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, and the schema covers the parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description mostly restates what the schema already documents for 'query' and 'autoLoad'. The example queries add a little flavor but no substantially new meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('searches') and a specific resource ('all 228 Salesforce tools by name'), and distinguishes itself by noting it includes tools in unloaded toolsets and auto-loads matching toolsets. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like sf_list_toolsets and sf_load_toolset.

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?

It gives explicit usage triggers: 'Use this whenever a tool you expect does not appear in the tool list, or when you do not know which toolset a capability lives in.' This is clear context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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