product_assortment_gap_analysis

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

The annotations indicate destructive potential, but the description does not disclose any actual side effects, data modifications, or destructive behavior. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is auth context rather than behavioral detail.

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 avoids unnecessary words. It clearly identifies the action and the routing mechanism, and each sentence contributes to the overall understanding, though the content is thin.

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 lacks essential context about what an assortment gap analysis is, what results it produces, and what kinds of input are relevant. It also does not mention output format, error scenarios, or any domain-specific constraints, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke it effectively.

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 meaning to the parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it does not explain the expected structure of the JSON inputs, provide examples, or describe how the message is used to drive the analysis.

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 names a specific action, 'assortment_gap_analysis', and states it is run through the product domain agent dispatcher, but it does not explain what an assortment gap analysis actually does or what outcome it produces. The purpose is somewhat clear from the name, but not fully elaborated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which alternative tools might be more appropriate. There is no mention of scenarios, limitations, or steps to achieve a successful invocation.

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