commerce_pricing_intelligence

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description needs only to add context. It adds that the call is routed through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is useful and beyond the annotations. It does not explain what side effects the destructive action may produce or whether results return synchronously, but the annotations carry the core safety disclosure.

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 — three sentences plus a two-line Args section with a clear lead sentence. Each sentence contributes routing, invocation, or parameter context without filler. It is slightly thin but well-structured and front-loaded.

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 generic dispatch wrapper, the description covers how the call is routed and scoped but omits what the pricing_intelligence action actually does, when to prefer it over the many commerce/product pricing siblings, and what structured inputs it accepts. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity, but the selection and behavioral gaps remain significant given the enormous, near-duplicate sibling list.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the two parameters. It does clarify that `message` is the free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs — meaning beyond the bare schema titles. However, it provides no domain-specific detail on what constitutes a valid objective or structured input for pricing_intelligence.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource (the commerce domain agent action `pricing_intelligence`), and explains the dispatcher routing. However, it never says what pricing intelligence actually computes or delivers; the action name largely restates the tool name, leaving no functional contrast against near-siblings like commerce_pricing_landscape, commerce_price_optimization_run, and product_pricing_intelligence.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool instead of the many related commerce/product pricing tools in the sibling list. The only context given is the routing scope (JWT, tenant, company), which addresses authorization, not tool selection. No when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives are provided.

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