DeliveryByAmazon_getInvoiceStatus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a notable trait: the tool 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here,' suggesting it is not executed directly by this MCP server. However, it does not clarify authentication, side effects, or what 'invoice status' entails, so the disclosure is partial.

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 very brief, using only three short clauses, and every part adds some information. The placement is not ideal because the actual purpose statement appears after the 'catalog entry' and 'runs in Kuudo' notes, but overall it is efficient and free of 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no defined parameters, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not specify what identifiers to pass, how the Kuudo deployment context affects invocation, what the returned status looks like, or how this differs from many sibling invoice-related tools. An agent would struggle to confidently call this tool correctly.

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 is empty with additionalProperties true, so there are no defined parameters to rely on. The description's phrase 'for the order or shipment you specify' is the only semantic hint that some identifier is required, which adds value beyond the schema. Given the 0-parameter baseline of 4, this is adequate, though it lacks parameter names or formats.

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 the core function: 'Returns the invoice status for the order or shipment you specify,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, the prefatory 'Catalog entry. Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' is ambiguous and the description does not differentiate it from similar sibling tools like ShipmentInvoicing_getInvoiceStatus.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as DeliveryByAmazon_submitInvoice, ShipmentInvoicing_getInvoiceStatus, or Invoices_getGovernmentInvoiceStatus. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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