commerce_inventory_check

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds useful scope/auth context by mentioning JWT, tenant, and company scoping, but it does not disclose what side effects may occur or warn that despite the 'check' name the action is flagged as destructive. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clean Args structure. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 two-parameter dispatcher wrapper, the description covers purpose, routing, and parameter roles, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. However, it never explains what inventory_check semantically does, what the structured inputs should contain, or when this tool should be preferred among the many closely related commerce_* tools, leaving the agent to rely on the name alone.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does: `message` is described as free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. For only two simple parameters, this is adequate compensation, though it lacks examples or accepted input shapes.

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 identifies the operation: run the commerce domain agent action `inventory_check`, and adds the routing mechanism. It is specific enough to distinguish this from generic tools like `dispatch_domain_agent`, but it does not explain what the inventory_check action actually does or how it differs from close siblings like `commerce_inventory_valuation`, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many commerce_* alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or fallback tools. The only contextual note is that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is mechanism rather than selection guidance.

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