ShippingLegacy_getRates

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool is a 'catalog entry' and runs in 'your Kuudo deployment, not here,' which is useful but incomplete. It does not mention auth, return behavior, errors, or whether invoking it locally is expected to fail.

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 only three short fragments and contains little filler. However, the ordering is not front-loaded for clarity—'Catalog entry' and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment' precede the core action—and 'Catalog entry' adds little explanatory value.

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 and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: it never explains what a successful response contains, how rates are scoped, or why the tool is only a catalog entry. An agent lacks the information to decide whether to invoke this tool or rely on Shipping_getRates. Minimal complexity does not compensate for this missing operational context.

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 defines zero parameters, and schema-description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters for the description to document. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are missing.

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 only action statement is 'Get service rates,' which largely restates the tool name and is broad. The preceding labels 'Catalog entry' and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' make it unclear whether this tool is actually callable and what its exact scope is. It does not differentiate from the sibling Shipping_getRates.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction, and no alternative is named such as Shipping_getRates. 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' hints at an execution-location constraint but leaves the agent to infer that this legacy tool may not be available in the current environment. This is minimal implied guidance at best.

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