commerce_supplier_search

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by explaining that the call routes through a domain-agent dispatcher and is scoped by JWT, tenant, and company. The annotations already declare destructiveHint, so the safety profile is available to the agent. However, the actual side effects or behavior of the underlying supplier_search action remain opaque.

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 front-loads the primary action before the routing context and argument list. There is no redundant prose, and each sentence serves a purpose. It could add more useful behavioral detail without becoming overly long, but as written it is well structured.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool. It lacks what supplier_search does, when to select it over related commerce tools, and what structured inputs should contain. This is especially problematic for a generic domain-agent wrapper with opaque parameters.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it only states that message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' It does not provide examples, allowed keys, expected formats, or how the two parameters interact. An agent still lacks enough detail to construct valid structured inputs for supplier_search.

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 it 'Run the commerce domain agent action `supplier_search`' and routes through a domain-agent dispatcher, so it identifies a specific action to invoke. However, it never explains what supplier_search actually does or returns, leaving the semantics to be inferred from the name. It also does not differentiate itself from commerce_supplier_evaluation or procurement_supplier_evaluation.

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 on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description only mentions routing and scoping, not selection criteria, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use. With dozens of commerce sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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