FulfillmentInbound_getInboundPlan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Fetches' implies a read-only operation, and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' adds execution-environment context. However, it does not describe return shape, side effects, or auth requirements.

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 short and front-loaded with the most important execution-context note. It is concise without being vague, though the fragment 'Catalog entry' adds limited independent value.

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 no-parameter getter, the description gives a workable purpose, but it lacks detail about what 'top level information' includes and what the response will look like. The execution-context warning is helpful, yet the tool remains minimally documented.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema is fully sufficient. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed in this case.

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?

States a specific verb ('fetches') and resource ('inbound plan'), with 'top level information' adding scope. It is distinguishable from sibling list/detail tools, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 use when top-level plan information is needed, but it does not state when to prefer this over related tools like listInboundPlans or listInboundPlanItems. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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