ShippingLegacy_getTrackingInformation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose an important runtime trait ('Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here') and the read-style return of tracking information. However, it does not state whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what the returned tracking information includes.

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, but three sentences are used for three pieces of information. 'Catalog entry.' is a low-value label and could be merged with the deployment sentence; the purpose sentence is clear and front-loaded enough.

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 retrieval tool with no schema-defined parameters, the description conveys environment and purpose. It omits return structure, how the shipment is identified, and any relationship to the modern Shipping_getTracking sibling, leaving the agent to guess whether this catalog entry is callable or just a reference.

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 properties and coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; 'of a shipment' weakly implies a shipment context but no parameter is named, and additionalProperties: true leaves possible arbitrary inputs undocumented.

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 clearly states the operation: 'Return the tracking information of a shipment', which gives a specific verb and resource. The 'Catalog entry' and deployment note add context but do not obscure the core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from Shipping_getTracking, though the Legacy prefix suggests a variant.

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 only usage hint is 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here', which implies the tool is not invocable in the current environment. There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over Shipping_getTracking or Shipping_getShipmentDocuments, and no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are named.

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