procurement_chat

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

The description adds some behavioral context by noting that it 'routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope', which clarifies authentication and authorization behavior. However, it does not elaborate on the actual side effects or the meaning of the destructiveHint annotation, so the transparency is partial. With annotations already providing readOnly and destructive hints, the description adds marginal value.

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 action, provides context about routing and scoping, and then lists parameter definitions. There is no redundant or irrelevant information, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is reasonably complete for a chat tool with two optional parameters, covering purpose, scoping, and parameter meanings. However, it does not clarify the nature of the chat (e.g., Q&A, action invocation) or what the response contains, though an output schema exists. The ambiguity around the destructiveHint (true) is not addressed, making the overall context slightly incomplete for an agent deciding how to use it.

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 provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'message' is described as a 'Free-text objective for the action', and 'inputs' as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action'. This goes beyond the schema, which only gives names and types, and helps the agent understand the intended use and format of each parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description still adds meaningful detail.

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 tool 'Run the procurement domain agent action `chat`', which is a specific verb with a specific resource (procurement domain chat). It also provides distinguishing context by mentioning the domain-agent dispatcher and the procurement domain, differentiating it from other chat tools like brain_chat or coding_chat in the sibling list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the 'procurement domain' implies usage for procurement-related chat, there is no direct statement of when to choose this over other domain-agent actions or chat tools.

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