product_assortment_gap_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe what the analysis does, side effects, permissions needed, or output behavior. This is inadequate for a mutation-like action.

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 with two sentences and a bullet list. It front-loads the purpose and then explains routing and parameters. Every part is relevant, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 tool is complex (an analysis action) but the description does not explain what the analysis does, what the output contains, or any prerequisites. There is an output schema, but its content is not visible, so the description should provide more 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but lacks examples or constraints on format.

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 it runs the product domain agent action 'assortment_gap_analysis', specifying the verb 'run' and the resource. It implies domain distinction from sibling 'commerce_assortment_gap_analysis', though no explicit differentiation is made.

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 is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list includes a very similar tool 'commerce_assortment_gap_analysis', and the description does not explain when product domain is appropriate over commerce domain.

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