Shipping_getAccessPoints

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

With no annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a 'Catalog entry,' runs in a separate Kuudo deployment, and returns a list. This makes the deployment boundary explicit. It does not disclose input format or return structure, but the operation is a simple read/list.

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?

Three short sentences convey the catalog nature, deployment context, and primary behavior with no filler. The most important environmental constraint is 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is close to sufficient, but the postal-code input mismatch is a material gap: an agent cannot reliably invoke it without knowing how to pass the postal code. It also does not explain what 'access points' are or the shape of the returned list.

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 schema declares zero properties, yet the description mentions 'input postal code,' adding a semantic input the schema does not define. This is useful but incomplete because it does not specify a parameter name, type, or format, leaving the agent to guess how to supply the postal code.

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 verb and resource: 'Returns a list of access points in proximity of input postal code.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but 'access points' is distinct among the Shipping sibling names.

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 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' gives clear environmental context and explicitly excludes the current runtime. However, it does not mention when to choose this over an alternative or name a sibling fallback.

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