commerce_tariff_lookup

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

The description does add some useful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that execution routes through the domain-agent dispatcher and is scoped by JWT, tenant, and company. However, it does not explain the surprising destructiveHint=true annotation or describe any side-effect potential of the tariff lookup action. It does not contradict the annotations, but it leaves their implications unexplained.

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 short, front-loaded with the action name, and uses a clear Args section. There is minor redundancy between 'Run the commerce domain agent action' and 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher,' but overall every section is brief and no extraneous content appears.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description is incomplete for practical use: it does not define tariff lookup semantics, valid message contents, input JSON keys, or when this should be selected among the many commerce siblings. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly beyond guessing from the tool name.

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 parameter meaning. It only says `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string, which is minimally helpful. It gives no examples, no expected structure for the JSON, and no guidance on how to phrase a tariff lookup objective for this specific action.

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 a specific action (`tariff_lookup`) and says the tool runs it, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never explains what a tariff lookup actually does or what domain problem it solves, leaving the agent to infer function from the name alone. It also does not differentiate this from similar commerce domain tools like commerce_trade_flow_lookup or commerce_supplier_search.

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 only context provided is that it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which describes mechanism rather than use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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