List / Search Objects

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: partial and case-insensitive matching, ranking order (exact, prefix, substring), default limit, the objectType semantics including 'custom (only __c)', and the returned fields. These details meaningfully improve the agent's ability to predict results.

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 efficiently organized: purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance follows, then a compact parameter summary, then return and ranking behavior. Every sentence adds useful information, and the parameter list is short and directly relevant. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers all parameters, default behavior, ranking, returned fields, and the appropriate follow-up action. An agent has enough information to decide when to invoke it and what results to expect.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining 'custom (only __c)', clarifying that omitting searchTerm lists every object, and summarizing the ranking behavior for searchTerm. This goes slightly beyond the structured schema descriptions without fully re-explaining what is already documented.

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 a specific verb and resource: it finds Salesforce objects by partial name or label, positioning itself as the discovery step before sf_describe_object. This distinguishes it from the sibling describe tool, which requires an exact API name. The discovery purpose is explicit and cannot be confused with querying records or modifying metadata.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: whenever the user refers to objects loosely rather than by exact API name. It also names the alternative, sf_describe_object, and specifies the follow-up condition—call it once you have an exact name. This is strong routing guidance with a clear exclusion and next step.

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