sf_get_record

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

With no annotations, the description alone must carry the behavioral burden; 'Fetch' and 'single record' convey read-only, single-record semantics. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing IDs, default field selection beyond the implicit 'restrict', permissions, or Salesforce-specific side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core operation front-loaded and the optional parameter guidance in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; no redundant schema or annotation material is repeated.

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 low-complexity single-record getter, the description covers the core selection and invocation needs and the main optional parameter. It is slightly incomplete only because there is no output schema or annotation to carry return/error behavior, and `sobject` is left to inference.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It usefully explains that `fields` limits returned fields and 'by ID' clarifies `record_id`, but it never explains what `sobject` refers to (e.g., an object APi name like Account), leaving a required parameter under-specified.

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 ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('a single record'), and an explicit retrieval key ('by ID'), which lets an agent distinguish it from bulk/list/mutation siblings like sf_query, sf_search, or sf_update_record even without naming them.

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?

It clearly frames the tool for the single-record-by-ID case and even gives a usage tip for the optional `fields` parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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