Get Salesforce org limits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states it 'Reads' the limits, implying a non-destructive operation. It doesn't disclose any additional behavior such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. For a simple read operation, the description is adequate but not rich; it provides the endpoint (/limits) and examples but omits details about response structure.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Read the org's governor limits and current usage') and follows with a practical use case. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly 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?

For a read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, examples, and a practical use case. It doesn't describe the response structure, but since the tool name and description are clear, this is a minor gap. Given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the 'filter' parameter clearly ('Only return limits whose name contains this string (case-insensitive).'). The description does not mention the filter or add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads the org's governor limits and current usage, with specific examples like DailyApiRequests, DataStorageMB, and FileStorageMB. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('org's governor limits and current usage'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like sf_rest_request, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to distinguish it as a dedicated limits reader.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for checking remaining API quota before bulk work.' This gives an agent context on when to invoke it. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.

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