Fees_getMyFeesEstimateForSKU

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add context about remote execution ('Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here') and the read-only nature of returning estimates. However, it does not clarify side effects, authorization needs, or the meaning of 'Catalog entry,' leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 brief, but it front-loads the vague 'Catalog entry' and the ambiguous 'not here' before the functional sentence. The most important information—what the tool returns—appears last. It is concise but not optimally structured for an agent quickly scanning for the callable behavior.

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, no annotations, and an effectively empty input schema, so the description must supply enough context for both selection and invocation. It names the SKU and marketplace but does not specify required request body fields, the exact way to indicate the SKU, or the shape of the returned fee estimate. An agent could identify the right tool but would likely struggle to construct a valid call without external knowledge.

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 properties and additionalProperties true, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It names the two key conceptual inputs: the seller SKU and the marketplace in the request body. It does not provide exact field names or types, but for a zero-parameter schema this is a reasonable baseline-plus 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the estimated fees for the item indicated by the specified seller SKU in the marketplace specified in the request body.' It distinguishes this from the sibling Fees_getMyFeesEstimateForASIN by centering on seller SKU. Despite the odd 'Catalog entry' prefix, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 description implies the tool is appropriate when the caller has a seller SKU and knows the marketplace, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus the ASIN-based variant or the batch Fees_getMyFeesEstimates. The deployment note 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' gives context but not clear selection guidance.

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