commerce_trade_flow_lookup

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail: execution under JWT, tenant, and company scope through the domain-agent dispatcher. However, it fails to reconcile that a tool named 'lookup' is flagged destructive and non-idempotent, leaving the side-effect potential 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?

Four short lines with zero waste: purpose is front-loaded, routing context earns its place, and the Args block is cleanly structured. Nothing redundant, and the parameter explanations add value rather than restating the schema defaults.

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?

For a wrapper tool with openWorldHint=true and 0% parameter schema coverage, this is thin. It omits the domain-level meaning of trade flow lookup, what a good 'message' objective looks like, what the inputs JSON should contain, and how the underlying action's state-changing behavior (per destructiveHint=true) affects invocation. The existence of an output schema excuses return-value documentation, but not the missing selection and usage context.

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 compensate, and it partially does: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs' add real meaning beyond the bare schema. But the explanations stop at a high level — no format expectations, examples, or hints about what structured keys the trade_flow_lookup action accepts.

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 first sentence, 'Run the commerce domain agent action `trade_flow_lookup`', gives a specific verb and resource, and the routing context makes clear this is a dispatcher wrapper. However, it never explains what a trade flow lookup actually produces in domain terms, so an agent cannot distinguish it from commerce_tariff_lookup, commerce_supply_chain_analysis, or the generic dispatch_domain_agent sibling.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. No mention of conditions, exclusions, or sibling differentiation — the description only states the mechanics of routing through the dispatcher, which does not help an agent decide to select this over the many other commerce_* or dispatch-domain tools.

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