commerce_revenue_by_channel

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

The description mentions scoping context but does not disclose any side effects, despite the annotations indicating destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The phrase 'Run the commerce domain agent action' is generic and does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not add meaningful behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already convey.

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 and free of unnecessary details. It states the action, the routing context, and the two parameters in a focused manner without repetition or 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?

The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, but it does not mention what the return value looks like despite an output schema being present. It also leaves the exact contents of `message` and `inputs` underspecified, which could require the agent to infer how to construct a useful request.

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 provides short explanations for both parameters: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but 'structured inputs' is vague and does not give concrete examples or expected format, so the parameter semantics remain only partially clarified.

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 the verb 'Run' and identifies the specific resource as 'the commerce domain agent action `revenue_by_channel`', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `company_revenue`. It could be slightly clearer about what the action actually returns, but the action name communicates the intent.

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 explains routing context ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions that would make it preferable to sibling revenue-related tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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