ShippingLegacy_getAccount

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds important context by disclosing that the tool is a 'Catalog entry' that runs in a Kuudo deployment 'not here', implying limited or no local executability. However, it does not specify what 'valid' means, whether any response is returned, or whether there are side effects, leaving behavioral expectations incomplete.

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 the most important constraint ('Catalog entry', 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here'). The first phrase is somewhat redundant with the deployment note, but the overall length is appropriate and free of fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks details about return values, what constitutes a valid or invalid account, and what an agent should do after invoking it. The 'Catalog entry' phrasing also leaves uncertainty about whether the tool is callable at all in the current environment.

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 declared parameters, so the input schema already fully covers the parameter surface; the description does not need to add parameter detail. The baseline of 4 applies, and the additionalProperties:true quirk is not significant for a zero-parameter tool.

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 ('Verify if the current account is valid') with a specific resource ('current account'). However, the opening phrase 'Catalog entry' and the deployment note 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' muddle whether this is a real invocable tool or a placeholder, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like Sellers_getAccount.

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 an explicit deployment exclusion ('not here') that tells an agent not to invoke it in the current environment, but it provides no positive guidance on when to use this tool or which sibling alternative to prefer. The context is helpful but leaves tool selection largely to inference.

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