commerce_external_market_research

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some scope-related context, but it does not disclose any side effects or mutating nature beyond what the annotations (destructiveHint: true) already indicate.

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, well-structured, and free of unnecessary detail. It effectively communicates the purpose and parameters in a compact form.

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 simple tool with two parameters, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. It does not mention output, but an output schema is present, so that omission is acceptable. However, the lack of usage guidelines slightly reduces completeness.

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 description explains both parameters: `message` as free-text objective and `inputs` as optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which has no descriptions, though it could be more specific about the expected structure of `inputs`.

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 tool runs the `external_market_research` domain agent action, which is specific and distinguishes it from other domain agent tools like `dispatch_domain_agent` or `invoke_agent_marketplace_action`. The verb 'Run' is explicit.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any criteria for selecting this over other domain agent actions or generic dispatch tools, leaving the agent without clear directional context.

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