ShipmentInvoicing_getShipmentDetails

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds one behavioral signal by saying the operation runs in the Kuudo deployment and not 'here,' but it is vague about side effects, authentication needs, error behavior, and the exact content of the returned details.

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 readable, but the first two sentences ('Catalog entry. Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here.') are cryptic filler that delay the actionable purpose. It is concise but not optimally structured or front-loaded.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description leaves critical gaps: how to specify the shipment and what the returned shipment details actually contain. The remote-execution note is not enough to make the tool safely and correctly invocable.

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 properties and permits additional properties, yet the description refers to a 'specified shipment' without identifying any parameter name, type, or format. An agent cannot determine how to pass the shipment identifier, so the description fails to compensate for the empty schema.

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 outcome: returning shipment details needed to issue an invoice. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submitInvoice and getInvoiceStatus. However, the opening 'Catalog entry' and 'not here' clauses add ambiguity that keeps it from being 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?

The phrase 'required to issue an invoice' implies the tool should be used to fetch shipment details before invoicing. It does not explicitly describe when to use it versus alternatives, and no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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