describe_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses that fields are ordered with sensitive ones first and include a sensitivity_guess flag. However, it could mention that it is a read-only operation and any rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key action ('live describe') and including important detail about sensitive fields ordering. It could be slightly more structured, but remains efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains the return value (fields with sensitivity flags). However, with 2 undocumented parameters and no schema coverage, the description is incomplete regarding input semantics.

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 description does not explain the parameters api_name and org_alias beyond their types and titles. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should add meaning, such as the format or source of api_name and the role of org_alias.

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 provides a 'live describe' of object fields with a sensitivity flag per field, and distinguishes it from siblings like soql_query by focusing on metadata rather than data.

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 implies the tool is for viewing field metadata with sensitivity clues, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like find_sensitive_access, and does not mention prerequisites or constraints.

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