commerce_connector_health_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, rate limits, or what action it performs. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 relatively short but includes unnecessary implementation detail about the dispatcher routing. It could be more concise by focusing on the tool's purpose and behavior rather than internal routing. The parameter descriptions are clear but add little value.

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?

Although an output schema exists (freeing the description from explaining return values), the description fails to elaborate on what the `connector_health_summary` action actually does. The agent is left to guess the nature of the health summary, making the description incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

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 compensate. It explains `message` as 'Free-text objective for the action' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action,' which adds some meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults. However, it remains vague about the expected format or content of these parameters.

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 restates the tool name as 'Run the commerce domain agent action `connector_health_summary`' without explaining what a connector health summary is or what it accomplishes. It offers no differentiation from sibling tools like `commerce_sync_status` or others, leaving the agent with only the name to infer 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about ideal scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it, which is critical given the large number of commerce-related sibling tools.

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