ExternalFulfillmentShipments_retrieveShippingOptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: this is a catalog entry and it runs in the user's Kuudo deployment rather than in the current environment. 'Get' also implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe response format, pagination, errors, authentication, or side effects, so the disclosure is only 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 short and front-loads the most important caveat: this runs in Kuudo, not here. The purpose statement is compact and without fluff. The phrases 'Catalog entry' and 'Kuudo deployment' are slightly jargon-heavy, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description has to provide the full invocation contract. It explains what the tool does and where it runs, but it leaves critical invocation details unspecified: how the package or shipment is identified, how marketplace and channel are passed, and what the returned list contains. An agent could select the tool but not confidently invoke it.

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, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description adds the only meaningful input signal: shipping options are selected based on the shipment's marketplace and channel. It does not specify parameter names or formats, but with zero schema properties this is still a valuable contribution.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource: 'a list of shipping options for a package in a shipment', and names the key input context: marketplace and channel. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like Shipping_getRates.

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?

The described use case is implied clearly: call this when you need shipping options for a package in a shipment. The line 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' gives an important context cue that this tool executes remotely, but no alternatives are named and no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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