commerce_customer_360

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, read-only vs mutation, or rate limits. It only describes routing context but does not indicate whether the action is destructive, idempotent, or what happens to data. This gap leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's impact.

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: three sentences and an argument list. It front-loads the core verb and resource. While efficient, it sacrifices informativeness; the same length could add more value without reducing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 optional params, many sibling tools, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the action returns, how it relates to siblings, or typical use cases. The agent lacks sufficient context to select this tool over alternatives like 'commerce_customer_segment' or 'commerce_chat'.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, adding meaning beyond the schema titles and defaults. However, it lacks details like expected format or examples, providing only basic semantics.

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 states it runs the 'customer_360' action within the commerce domain agent, which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not clarify what the action does (e.g., retrieve customer overview, analyze data), making it hard to distinguish from sibling tools like 'commerce_customer_profile' or 'commerce_customer_value_summary'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope (authentication/authorization) but does not specify scenarios, 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.