commerce_procurement_brief

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context by mentioning routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or mutability of the action beyond that.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a clear bullet-point format for parameters. No unnecessary information, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 the complexity of a domain action (procurement brief) and the existence of many sibling tools, the description lacks essential context: what the action does, when to invoke it, and what the structured inputs expect. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged to explain what the tool returns.

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 adds meaning to the two parameters: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. While better than the schema alone (which has 0% description coverage), the semantics are vague and do not specify what the structured inputs should contain.

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 states it runs the commerce domain agent action 'procurement_brief', but does not explain what that action does or what a procurement brief accomplishes. This is clear but vague, and does not differentiate from sibling commerce tools like commerce_campaign_brief or commerce_sourcing_brief.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context about the appropriate use case for procurement_brief compared to other commerce tools.

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