ecommerce_audit_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only paraphrases the action enum (record and get_history). It does not disclose side effects of recording, prerequisites, whether entries are append-only, or what data is actually stored in an entry.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It would benefit from breaking out record vs get_history semantics, but as written it is concise and quickly scannable.

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 has two behaviors, no output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters, yet the description provides only a high-level phrase. An agent cannot determine what to pass to record, what get_history returns, or how productId and limit apply to each action.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions price/stock history, giving weak context for productId. It says nothing about limit or about how action=record obtains the new price/stock values that the description promises to record.

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 set — record and view — and a concrete resource: product price and stock change history. It is clear enough to recognize this as an audit-log tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate.

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 about when to call this tool versus ecommerce_update_price_stock, ecommerce_batch_update_price_stock, or the many other siblings. The action enum hints at two modes, but the description never states which mode is appropriate in which workflow.

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