salesforce_search_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining search capabilities (wildcards, WITH clauses, access filtering via 'updateable' and 'viewable'), but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the response format looks like. The notes section adds valuable operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by comprehensive examples and organized notes. While slightly lengthy, every section earns its place by providing essential guidance for using this complex tool. The examples are particularly valuable for understanding parameter combinations.

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 complex search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains the search mechanics well but doesn't describe the return format, pagination, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The examples help compensate, but complete behavioral transparency is lacking for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value through examples that demonstrate how parameters work together (especially the complex 'objects' and 'withClauses' structures) and provides practical guidance about wildcards and WITH clause types, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the well-documented schema already provides.

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 specific action ('Search across multiple Salesforce objects') and technology used ('using SOSL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like salesforce_query_records (SOQL) and salesforce_search_objects. It explicitly identifies the multi-object search capability as its core function.

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 about when to use this tool (searching across multiple objects with SOSL) and includes examples demonstrating different use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the SOSL focus implies differentiation from SOQL-based queries.

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