product_trend_synthesis

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

The description discloses that the tool routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds useful auth/scoping context. Annotations already communicate the destructive, non-idempotent nature, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does not add details about side effects, but the annotations carry that burden.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured with a clear Args section. Every sentence serves a function with no filler.

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 minimally complete given the output schema and annotations: it identifies the action, scoping, and both parameters. However, it lacks an explanation of what trend synthesis does and when to invoke it over sibling domain-agent tools, leaving selection somewhat ambiguous.

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 input schema has no property descriptions, so the Args section provides minimal semantics: `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string. This is helpful but shallow; it does not describe expected JSON structure, how the two parameters interact, or example usage.

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 a specific action: `Run the product domain agent action 'trend_synthesis'`. It identifies the resource and domain, which helps distinguish it from similar commerce_trend_synthesis. However, it does not explain what the trend synthesis action actually does, relying on the tool name for semantic meaning.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like commerce_trend_synthesis, product_chat, or dispatch_domain_agent. The routing details explain mechanics but not selection criteria or exclusions.

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