salesforce_search_objects

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

The description adds behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains the fuzzy/pattern matching behavior with examples ('Account' finds AccountHistory). This gives the agent expectations about partial matches. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint, and the description appropriately discloses the search semantics, though it does not detail output format or case sensitivity—still acceptable given the annotation.

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 only two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The examples are concise and immediately demonstrate behavior. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It states what the tool searches, how the pattern works, and provides representative examples. No additional context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 already describes searchPattern with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable examples and clarifies the pattern-matching semantics (e.g., 'Order' finds WorkOrder, ServiceOrder__c), which goes beyond the schema's generic description. This earns a 4.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'Salesforce standard and custom objects' with a specific scope ('by name pattern'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like salesforce_search_all by focusing specifically on object metadata, and the examples reinforce this purpose.

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 indicates this is for finding objects by name pattern, which gives clear context for when to use it (e.g., before describing or querying an object) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. However, the examples and the tool's specificity provide enough implicit guidance; a brief note on when NOT to use it (e.g., for searching records) would be an improvement.

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