commerce_service_catalog

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

The description mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds slight context. However, annotations include destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description gives no warning about side effects, external actions, or destructive potential, leaving the agent blind to a significant behavioral trait.

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 separates the purpose line, routing context, and argument documentation into clearly scannable sections. It wastes few words, though the first line could have been more informative.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but a potentially destructive domain-agent wrapper still needs context about what service_catalog does, when to invoke it, and what consequences to expect. The description is too skeletal to fully support correct selection and invocation.

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 the parameter documentation. It does minimally: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema fields, but it remains generic and gives no example, accepted input shape, or action-specific guidance.

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 opens with 'Run the commerce domain agent action `service_catalog`', which essentially restates the tool name and gives no semantic description of what a 'service_catalog' action does for the user. The added routing detail (dispatcher, JWT, tenant, company scope) explains mechanics, not purpose, so an agent cannot tell what business outcome this tool achieves.

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 sibling commerce tools such as commerce_catalog_sync, commerce_product_analysis, or commerce_converse. The description never states what scenario calls for service_catalog, nor what alternatives exist.

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