Shipping_getAdditionalInputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does add useful context by stating it 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' and returns a JSON schema. However, it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or failure behavior, and 'Catalog entry' adds ambiguity about whether this is an invocable tool.

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 core purpose sentence is compact, but the description front-loads the vague fragment 'Catalog entry.' and places the execution-location caveat before the main function. It is not overly long, but the ordering and opaque opener prevent a cleaner structure.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it returns, why, and where it runs. The exact workflow trigger and how the returned schema should be consumed are left implicit, but this is relatively complete for such a simple tool.

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, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the returned schema rather than input handling.

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 that the tool returns a JSON schema for providing additional inputs when purchasing a shipping offering, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like Shipping_getCarrierAccountFormInputs, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 'when needed to purchase a shipping offering' implies the intended usage context, but it is not an explicit directive about when to call this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance remains implied rather than prescriptive.

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