commerce_transaction_anomaly_scan

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

The description adds that the tool routes through the platform dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but it does not disclose potential side effects, whether it can modify data, or what the destructiveHint annotation might imply in practice.

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, well-structured, and free of irrelevant detail. It front-loads the purpose and uses a clean parameter list.

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 omits what the scan returns, how results should be interpreted, when it should be invoked, and any operational context. An output schema exists but is not summarized or explained.

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 adds minimal useful semantics by calling 'message' a free-text objective and 'inputs' an optional JSON string, but neither parameter is explained in enough detail for confident structured use.

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 action verb ('Run') and the specific commerce-domain agent action being invoked, but it does not explain what a transaction anomaly scan actually does or what problem it solves.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of typical use cases. The routing note is context, not usage guidance.

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