EasyShip_getScheduledPackage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and 'Returns information' implies a read-only operation. It adds a useful deployment caveat about running in Kuudo rather than here, but it does not mention error conditions, authentication expectations, or what happens when a package is not found.

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 free of obvious padding, but the opening 'Catalog entry' is an unhelpful label and the deployment sentence is ambiguous. The return-content sentence is useful, but the overall structure could be tighter and more actionable.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both invocation and expected results. It covers the return contents at a high level but omits the required input identifier, clear execution context, and any status or error behavior, leaving an agent under-equipped to call it 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 has zero documented properties and allows arbitrary additional properties, yet the description never explains how to identify which package to retrieve. A getter for a package needs some package identifier or selection context, and neither the schema nor the description provides it.

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 identifies the operation as returning information about a package and enumerates the returned aspects: dimensions, weight, handover time slot, invoice, item, and status. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling EasyShip tools, but the core function is specific and understandable.

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 related tools like EasyShip_createScheduledPackage or EasyShip_updateScheduledPackages. The note 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' hints at a deployment constraint, but it is not actionable guidance about when this call should be selected.

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