commerce_revenue_by_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'runs' an action and 'routes' through a dispatcher, without clarifying whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or is idempotent. For a query-like tool, this is a significant omission.

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 very concise, consisting of three short sentences plus a brief Args list. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by routing context and parameter definitions. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 simple 2-parameter schema and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are important for selecting this tool among many commerce siblings. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds some meaning beyond the raw schema, but it fails to specify allowed keys, formats, or behavior when inputs are omitted. The description is minimally helpful.

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 executes a commerce domain agent action 'revenue_by_product'. The name is self-explanatory, and the description reinforces the specific purpose of retrieving revenue data segmented by product. This distinguishes it from siblings like commerce_revenue_by_channel.

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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, implying automatic authentication handling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as commerce_revenue_by_channel or commerce_margin_analysis. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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