Get SObject Record by ID

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add extra context. It does add that the tool returns all or specified fields and accepts 15/18-character IDs, but it omits error behavior, permission requirements, or field-level security, which are not covered by 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema but is clearly formatted and does not become verbose. Overall it is efficient and readable.

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 single-record retrieval, the description covers the essential behavior, parameters, and expected use. The schema fully documents inputs, annotations cover safety, and no output schema is required. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter names and basic purpose (e.g., objectApiName, recordId, fields) but adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema's own descriptions, which already include examples and the 'empty means all fields' note.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('single Salesforce record by its 15 or 18 character record ID'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like sf_query_records or sf_search_records. The scope is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a Salesforce record ID and need a single record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'single record by ID' framing provides sufficient context to differentiate from query/search tools.

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