commerce_demand_forecast

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotent=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds routing/scoping context (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or what the action changes, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 short and front-loaded with the action name, and the Args section is compact. The routing sentence adds a little contextual detail without bloating the description.

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?

With two free-form optional params, a large sibling set, and no explanation of what demand_forecast computes or when it is appropriate, the description is under-specified. The existing output schema helps with return values but does not help an agent decide when to use the tool or how to craft meaningful inputs.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the Args section helps by saying `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. But it never specifies allowable structure, examples, or domain-specific input key, so it only minimally compenstates for the missing schema.

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?

States it runs the commerce domain agent action `demand_forecast`, a specific verb+resource, and the action name is unique among siblings. However, it doe not explain what demand forecasting actually does or how it differs from sibling forecast-like tools, so it is clear only at the wrapper level.

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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned. 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher' describes mechanism, not selection criteria, and an agent cannot tell when to choose this over `commerce_predict` or `finance_forecast`.

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