sf_bulk_query

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that the operation is job-based, polls until completion, is slower, and bypasses interactive per-request limits. It could go further by describing response shape or error conditions, but the core runtime behavior is transparent enough for agent invocation.

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, front-loaded with the key use case, and every sentence adds value: purpose, behavioral trade-off, and explicit routing guidance. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, absence of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description covers the most critical decision factors: what it does, when to use it, and how it behaves. The only notable gap is that it doesn't specify what the successful response contains, but that is a minor omission for a bulk query tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not add detailed parameter documentation beyond implying that 'soql' is the query string. However, with a single self-descriptive required parameter, the description's mention of 'SOQL query' is minimally adequate for an agent to understand what to pass.

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 action ('Run a SOQL query via Bulk API 2.0') and a specific resource, immediately differentiating it from sf_query by targeting result sets too large for interactive queries. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even without inspecting the schema.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus sf_query: prefer sf_query for everyday lookups, use sf_bulk_query when expecting very large result sets. It also gives a key trade-off ('Slower... not subject to sf_query's interactive per-request limits') which helps the agent make an informed choice.

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