FulfillmentOutbound_getFeatureSKU

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation returns a count, implying a read-only lookup, and adds the environment-specific behavior of running in the Kuudo deployment. However, it omits details such as how sellerSku and feature are supplied, whether the result is a raw number or wrapped in an object, and any error or authorization behavior.

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 front-loaded, with no excessive wording. The fragmented 'Catalog entry.' opener adds little, but the core sentence is efficient and the deployment warning is relevant. It earns a strong score without being perfectly polished.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameter schema, the description should compensate by explaining invocation and results. It states the return value is a count and mentions the deployment context, but it does not specify the exact parameter keys, required format, or how the feature is identified. The core is adequate but leaves notable ambiguity.

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 defined properties and allows additionalProperties, so the description adds meaningful value by referencing 'sellerSku' and 'feature' as expected inputs. It does not provide exact parameter names, formats, or requirements, but for a schema with no parameters, this is useful semantic grounding.

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 tool as returning a count of items for a given sellerSku and feature, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getFeatures and getFeatureInventory by focusing on the sellerSku-specific item count, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 gives a deployment-level clue ('Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here') but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over related FulfillmentOutbound tools. There is no mention of alternatives, preconditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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