commerce_connector_health_summary

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

The description discloses auth scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not mention side effects or destructive potential. Annotations already mark destructiveHint true, and the description does not explicitly contradict that, but it also adds little behavioral detail beyond routing context.

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 and well-structured, with a clear main statement, routing context, and an Args section. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable, but the description still leaves ambiguity about what the action does and how to construct the optional inputs. It is adequate for a generic wrapper, but not rich enough to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

Parameter descriptions are minimal: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string'. The schema itself has 0% coverage, so there is no detail about expected JSON structure, allowed values, or how the message and inputs interact.

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 names a specific domain-agent action (`connector_health_summary`) and explains that it routes through the dispatcher, but it never says what a connector health summary actually does or what it returns. The purpose is partially inferable from the action name, but not fully clarified.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_connectors or other commerce tools. The description only provides generic argument descriptions and does not state expected use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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