Shipping_getCollectionFormHistory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important contextual behavior that the call runs in the caller's Kuudo deployment rather than the current environment, and 'get' implies a read-only retrieval. It does not, however, describe possible side effects, response shape, pagination, or any required permissions, so transparency is only partial.

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 and mostly front-loaded with the environment constraint before the core purpose. The opening 'Catalog entry.' is vague filler that does not earn its place, slightly reducing the score, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 provides the essential resource and environment context. It is missing details about what the returned history contains, whether the call is safe/read-only, and any prerequisites, which leaves an agent to infer those aspects.

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 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are no parameters to document.

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 the operation clearly: 'to get the history of the previously generated collection forms', identifying both the verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling Shipping_getCollectionForm or Shipping_generateCollectionForm, but the 'previously generated' qualifier carries that distinction. The leading 'Catalog entry' phrase adds noise and is not a purpose statement.

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?

It offers implied usage context: the tool is for retrieving history of forms that were already generated, which implies it is not for generating or fetching a single current form. It also contains an environment note, 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here', which is a usage-relevant constraint. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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