commerce_economic_context

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

Annotations already mark this destructive and non-idempotent, and the description does not contradict them. It adds a useful scoping clue about routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose what side effects or state changes occur, leaving the agent to infer consequences.

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, then routing, then an Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no apparent padding.

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?

The tool is a destructive, non-idempotent passthrough to a domain agent action, yet the description never states what economic_context does, when to invoke it, or what effects to expect. An output schema exists, so return shape is covered elsewhere, but selection and safety-relevant context are missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter documentation burden and does add basic semantics: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. However, it gives no examples, no expected keys in the inputs JSON, and no guidance on what a good objective for economic_context looks like.

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 says 'Run the commerce domain agent action `economic_context`', which essentially restates the tool's name and does not say what economic context means or what result the action produces. The routing explanation adds implementation detail but no functional differentiation from the many commerce_* siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no conditions under which this should be selected over commerce_chat, commerce_converse, or dispatch_domain_agent. The only context is routing and scope, which does not help choose this tool.

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