Get OmniStudio FlexCard

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what configuration data is returned (data source, fields, actions, states, activation status). No contradictions; it complements the 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?

One sentence of 17 words, front-loaded with the verb, and includes a concise enumeration of contents. No wasted words; all information is relevant.

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 single-parameter get tool with rich annotations, the description adequately explains the return scope (configuration elements). Since there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned data satisfies the need for explaining return values. The tool is simple enough that no further details are needed.

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 single parameter cardName has a complete schema description ('API name of the FlexCard to retrieve'), so the schema covers 100% of parameter meaning. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly names the resource (OmniStudio FlexCard configuration), enumerating the contained elements (data source, fields, actions, states, activation status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_flexcard or sf_activate_flexcard.

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 clear context that this tool is for reading a FlexCard's configuration, and the get verb implies it is for inspection rather than modification. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it lacks the explicit when/when-not guidance that would earn a 5.

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