FulfillmentInbound_getShipment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important execution trait: 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here,' and 'Provides the full details' implies a read-only operation. But it omits side-effect guarantees, authentication requirements, error behavior, or what 'full details' includes, leaving significant 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 short and mostly free of fluff, with the core purpose in one sentence. However, the purpose is not front-loaded—the first sentence 'Catalog entry' provides little value and delays the actual action, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and an empty schema that still allows additional properties, the description should compensate by specifying required identifiers (e.g., shipmentId, inboundPlanId) or the shape of returned details. It does neither, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke 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 is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description adds mild semantic context by indicating the shipment is tied to an inbound plan, suggesting that identifiers for both may be needed. It does not name parameters, but since the schema declares none, it is not penalized heavily.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Provides the full details for a specific shipment within an inbound plan.' This clearly differentiates it from other shipment-related tools by scoping to inbound plan shipments. However, the opening 'Catalog entry' is meta-noise and it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives like FulfillmentInbound_listShipmentItems, Awd_getInboundShipment, or ShippingLegacy_getShipment. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions or context in which it should be used.

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