commerce_supply_chain_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 through a domain-agent dispatcher and authentication context, but it does not reveal whether the action is read-only, what side effects it has, rate limits, or the nature of its outputs. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the implications of calling this tool.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the action clearly stated in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, routing context, and parameter explanations. There is no wasted text, though slightly more detail on the action itself would be welcome.

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 covers return values), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what supply chain analysis does, what kind of results to expect, or any constraints. For a tool that runs a potentially complex analysis, this lack of context makes it hard for an agent to decide whether to use it.

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 compensates well by explaining that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's default values and titles. It could be improved by specifying expected structure of 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 purpose: running the commerce domain agent action `supply_chain_analysis`. The verb 'Run' and the resource name are specific, and the tool name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like `commerce_assortment_gap_analysis` or `commerce_demand_forecast`. However, it lacks a brief explanation of what supply chain analysis actually entails, so it's not a 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains routing mechanics (JWT, tenant, company scope) but not the context in which supply chain analysis is appropriate or when to choose it over other commerce tools.

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