commerce_spend_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing and authorization scope but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The agent cannot infer safety or mutation behavior from the description alone.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering the action, routing context, and parameter definitions. No redundant or irrelevant content. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the burden of describing return values), the description omits critical context about the tool's purpose, expected outcomes, and domain-specific behavior. It does not explain what 'spend_analysis' actually analyzes or produces. The agent is left without sufficient understanding to invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, but adds no format, examples, or constraints beyond the schema's type. The agent lacks guidance on how to properly formulate the message or structure the inputs.

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's action: 'Run the commerce domain agent action `spend_analysis`.' It specifies the verb (run) and the resource (spend_analysis), which is distinct from sibling tools like 'commerce_chat' or 'commerce_margin_analysis'. The additional context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to other commerce tools. The agent is given no context about when 'spend_analysis' is appropriate versus other analytics tools like 'commerce_margin_analysis' or 'commerce_revenue_by_channel'.

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