commerce_top_products_by_margin

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

The description mentions the JWT, tenant, and company scope, which gives some context about permissions. However, it does not disclose that the action is destructive (as indicated by destructiveHint: true) or describe any side effects. Since the annotation already covers destructiveness, the description adds minimal transparency but does not contradict the annotation.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, provides routing context in the second sentence, and lists parameters with brief explanations. No unnecessary words or redundant details.

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?

The description covers the action name, routing mechanism, and parameter purposes, but it lacks information about expected output (despite an output schema being present), potential side effects, or how to interpret results. It also does not clarify how this tool fits into the broader set of commerce or domain-agent tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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?

The description clearly explains both parameters: `message` is a free-text objective, and `inputs` is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema (which only provides type and default), fully covering the parameter semantics.

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 names the specific action (`top_products_by_margin`) and states its purpose: to run that commerce domain agent action. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being tied to this exact action, though it does not elaborate on what the action does or what 'top products by margin' means.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar tools (e.g., other domain agent actions, dispatch_domain_agent, or commerce-specific tools). It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or when to avoid it, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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