FulfillmentInbound_listInboundPlans

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

In the absence of annotations, the description does disclose non-obvious traits: it runs in the user's Kuudo deployment rather than the current environment, and it returns only minimal information. However, it does not confirm read-only behavior, pagination, or expected success/failure behavior, so the description only partially carries the behavioral burden.

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 appropriately short for a zero-parameter tool, but it does not front-load the purpose. 'Catalog entry.' is a vague fragment, and the deployment note interrupts the actual functional statement, making the structure less helpful than it could be.

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?

The description omits what 'minimal information' includes, whether results are paginated, and when to prefer this plan-level list over the many sibling plan/shipment list tools. With no output schema and no annotations, the description needed to carry more contextual weight than it does.

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 and the schema covers that fully, so the description has nothing meaningful to add about parameter meanings. With an empty parameter list, the baseline of 4 is appropriate because the schema already documents everything needed for invocation.

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 listing inbound plans with minimal information, so the resource and verb are explicit. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like listInboundPlanItems or getInboundPlan, and the 'Catalog entry' phrase adds no functional clarity, so it stops 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listInboundPlanItems, listInboundPlanBoxes, or getInboundPlan. The only contextual hint, 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here,' concerns environment availability rather than selection criteria, so an agent gets no decision support.

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