ShippingLegacy_getShipment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the tool runs in a Kuudo deployment rather than locally and that the entire shipment object is returned. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior, or rate limits, though 'Return' implies a read-only operation.

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 very short and contains no filler. The key behavior is stated directly in the final sentence, and the deployment context, while oddly phrased, is relevant. It earns a solid score for brevity, though the fragmented style could be smoother.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, it conveys the return value and execution environment. But with no output schema and no parameter schema, the lack of detail on how to supply shipmentId and what happens when the shipment is not found leaves a meaningful gap for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 allows additionalProperties, so the only signal that a shipmentId is needed comes from the description. This adds semantic meaning beyond the empty schema, but it leaves the parameter's type, location, and required status undefined, and it conflicts with the formal parameter count of 0.

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 and resource: 'Return the entire shipment object for the shipmentId.' This makes the operation identifiable as a read-by-ID call. However, the 'Catalog entry' and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' phrasing adds confusion, and it does not explicitly differentiate it from the many other getShipment siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as Shipping_getShipment, MerchantFulfillment_getShipment, or FulfillmentInbound_getShipment. The only contextual note is environmental ('Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here'), which does not help an agent choose this tool over siblings.

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