Messaging_getMessagingActionsForOrder

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses that execution happens remotely ('not here') and that the operation returns a list rather than mutating, but it leaves 'Catalog entry' unexplained and does not cover auth, prerequisites, or whether the tool is callable from this environment at all.

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?

At three short sentences it is compact, but the front-loaded 'Catalog entry' and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' obscure the core purpose, which only appears at the end. 'Catalog entry' is redundant or at least unexplained alongside the deployment note.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description needed to clarify whether and how this tool can be invoked here, how to specify the order, and what the returned 'message types' look like. It leaves all three unclear, so an agent cannot confidently select and invoke it.

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 declares zero properties and only `additionalProperties: true`, while the description refers to 'an order that you specify.' This is an unnamed, unspecified parameter: no property name, type, or format is given, so an agent cannot know how to pass the order. The zero-parameter baseline is undermined by the description's own claim that an order input exists.

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 sentence 'Returns a list of message types that are available for an order that you specify' states a concrete verb, resource, and scoping condition. It does not explicitly contrast with the many sibling Messaging create/send tools, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' hints at a deployment constraint, but there is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling Messaging operations or any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use case of listing available message types before sending one is only implied.

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