Get Field Level Security (Audit)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description goes beyond by explaining the mechanism (FieldPermissions query object) and scope (all Profiles and Permission Sets). It doesn't detail return format or pagination, but the safety profile is covered and the added context is valuable.

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 concise, with a front-loaded verb ('Reads'), a clear explanation, usage guidance, and the parameter lines are brief and directly useful. No wasted words; 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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it targets. The statement 'Reads the current field-level security grants... across all Profiles and Permission Sets' clearly implies the output. The use cases and relation to the create tool make it contextually complete.

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 and examples for both parameters (objectName and fieldName) with 100% coverage. The description repeats the same parameter names and examples without adding new semantics, so it merely mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function with specific verb and resource: 'Reads the current field-level security grants for a field across all Profiles and Permission Sets that reference it, via the FieldPermissions query object.' This distinguishes it from sibling sf_create_field_level_security, which sets grants. The title 'Get Field Level Security (Audit)' reinforces the read-only audit purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use to audit who can currently see or edit a field before changing access, or to answer "which profiles can edit this field?".' It also identifies an alternative: 'Complements sf_create_field_level_security, which sets grants but doesn't report the current state.' This provides clear usage context and differentiation from a related tool.

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