commerce_customer_value_summary

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

The description does add useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description neither explains nor contradicts that; an agent would not know why a 'summary' action is flagged destructive.

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 compact and well-ordered: command first, routing context second, then an Args list. There is no filler or repetition, making it easy to scan quickly.

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 tool embedded in a massive sibling list, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain what the customer_value_summary action does, how it differs from analogous commerce_* tools, or what kind of message yields a useful result. The output schema exists, but the missing domain semantics leave the agent without enough context to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 carry the parameter-meaning burden. It provides minimal but functional explanations: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. It does not describe expected JSON structure, keys, formats, or constraints, leaving significant ambiguity for structured input.

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 an action ('Run the commerce domain agent action customer_value_summary') and adds only routing/scope mechanics. It never explains what a customer value summary actually is or what it produces, so the agent must infer purpose from the tool name rather than the description.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many commerce siblings such as commerce_customer_360, commerce_customer_profile, or commerce_customer_segment. The Args section implies the agent should provide a free-text objective, but there is no contextual direction about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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