product_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds some authorization context, but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or return format. With an output schema present, the description misses the opportunity to clarify behavior.

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 at 7 lines, with a clear Args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, though some lines like the routing detail are included. Generally efficient without unnecessary text.

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 tool's complexity as a domain agent action and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'product_analysis' accomplishes, leaving the agent uncertain about its specific capabilities compared to many product-related siblings. The routing and parameter info does not suffice for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic parameter descriptions: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, but is minimal—no details on the expected structure or usage of 'inputs'.

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 states 'Run the product domain agent action product_analysis,' providing a verb and resource, but the purpose is vague—'product_analysis' is not elaborated. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'commerce_product_analysis' or 'product_chat'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context-specific usage hints, exclusions, or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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