commerce_demand_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only explains that the tool routes through a dispatcher and expects a free-text objective, but fails to describe what the demand forecast action actually does (e.g., computation, side effects, output structure). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded, with no superfluous content. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and argument usage. However, it could be slightly more informative without added bulk.

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, the description does not mention what the tool returns, leaving agents uninformed about the output. The description also lacks detail on the action's purpose and expected effects, making it incomplete for a tool that executes a named action.

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 add meaning. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds some context beyond the schema defaults. However, the descriptions are vague and do not specify the format or expected content of the inputs, limiting practical guidance.

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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'demand_forecast', identifying the action. It also explains the routing scope. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like commerce_predict or commerce_forecasting, which could cause confusion.

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 only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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