ShipmentInvoicing_getInvoiceStatus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read ('Returns') and that it runs remotely ('in your Kuudo deployment, not here'), but doesn't clarify the 'Catalog entry' meaning, output format, auth requirements, or failure behavior. The vague 'not here' actually reduces transparency.

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 text is brief and free of fluff, but the first two sentences ('Catalog entry. Runs in... not here.') are cryptic and delay the actual purpose. Each sentence should earn its place; these are confusing rather than clarifying.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no defined parameters, the description must provide complete context. It does not: the agent cannot tell how to specify a shipment, what response to expect, or even whether the tool can be called from this environment. The definition is inadequate for selection and invocation.

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 schema declares zero properties, yet the description says 'for the shipment you specify,' implying a required identifier parameter. It neither names the parameter nor provides its type or format, and additionalProperties=true leaves the agent guessing. This is a critical gap that prevents correct 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 states a clear action ('Returns the invoice status') and a specific resource ('the shipment'). However, it doesn't differentiate from similarly named siblings like DeliveryByAmazon_getInvoiceStatus, and the introductory 'Catalog entry... not here' phrasing muddies whether the tool is actually executable.

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 ShipmentInvoicing_getShipmentDetails, DeliveryByAmazon_getInvoiceStatus, or Invoices_getInvoice. 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' hints at a remote execution context but doesn't tell the agent when or whether to invoke it.

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