commerce_transaction_anomaly_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose whether the scan is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or any restrictions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or irrelevant information. The structure is well front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), return values are not required. However, the description omits what constitutes an anomaly, the kind of results expected, and any prerequisite conditions. It is minimally viable but lacks depth for complex decision-making.

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 by explaining that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema defaults, though it could be more precise about input structure.

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 'Run the commerce domain agent action transaction_anomaly_scan', specifying a specific verb and resource (scanning for transaction anomalies). This distinguishes it from sibling commerce tools like commerce_chat or commerce_ab_test.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit scenarios, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer 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.