ecommerce_token_telemetry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a generic action. It does not disclose that 'action' switches between record and get, what side effects recording has, or whether the operation returns telemetry data.

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 and front-loaded, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficient structure. The single phrase omits essential information and is not a complete definition.

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?

For a tool with two action modes, four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without enough context to call it correctly. It would need at least operation-specific parameter requirements and result behavior.

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 needed to explain the action enum and the three token parameters. Instead, it says only 'Record token telemetry' and adds no meaning to inputTokens, savedTokens, outputTokens, or the record/get distinction.

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 'Record token telemetry' restates the tool name's resource ('token telemetry') and asserts only one of the two operations exposed by the 'action' enum ('record'), omitting 'get'. It does not differentiate this telemetry tool from the many sibling ecommerce tools.

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 about when to record versus get telemetry, nor any comparison to related tools such as ecommerce_get_store_metrics or ecommerce_audit_log. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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