commerce_supplier_evaluation

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

Description mentions routing via domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as whether the action is read-only or destructive, rate limits, response time, or side effects. With no annotations, the description should provide this context.

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?

Short description with no wasted text but poorly structured. A single paragraph without clear separation of routing info and parameter details. Acceptable but not exemplary.

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, the description omits the tool's purpose in the commerce domain. It does not explain what the supplier evaluation accomplishes, how results are presented, or how it fits with related tools. Incomplete for an evaluation action.

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 adds minimal meaning: 'message' is free-text objective, 'inputs' is optional JSON. This clarifies types but lacks format constraints or examples. Barely adequate.

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?

Description restates the tool name ('Run... supplier_evaluation') without clarifying the business purpose. It mentions technical routing but fails to state what evaluating suppliers entails or how it differs from sibling tools like commerce_supplier_search or procurement_supplier_evaluation. The phrase 'free-text objective' is vague.

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. Sibling tools include commerce_supplier_search and procurement_supplier_evaluation, but the description provides no context for choosing this one. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use information.

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