commerce_external_market_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope (implying authentication), but does not describe what the action actually does (e.g., whether it is read-only, mutates data, incurs costs, has latency, or returns specific data). The agent is left to infer behavior from the tool name alone.

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 very concise, using only four lines to convey the primary purpose and parameter meanings. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Run the commerce domain agent action'). However, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) for readability. Still, every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 that the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description fails to provide sufficient context about what the action does (market research on what domain? what kind of output?). It only explains the routing mechanics. Sibling tools with similar names (e.g., `commerce_category_landscape`) suggest overlapping functionality, but the description does not help the agent decide. The context is incomplete for confident selection.

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?

The input schema provides only parameter titles (Message, Inputs) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by stating: 'message: Free-text objective for the action.' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This adds meaningful semantics, clarifying that inputs are optional and structured as JSON. Although it could further specify the expected JSON structure, it significantly improves understanding over the raw 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?

The description clearly states it runs the commerce domain agent action `external_market_research`. The tool name itself is descriptive, and the description reinforces the purpose by specifying it is routed through a platform dispatcher. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling commerce tools like `commerce_category_landscape` or `commerce_pricing_intelligence`, which could also involve research. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.

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 lacks any indication of prerequisites, context, or scenarios. It only describes the routing mechanism, not the appropriate usage conditions. Without usage guidance, an agent may misuse it.

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