Solicitations_getSolicitationActionsForOrder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation returns a list and that it executes in a 'Kuudo deployment, not here.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what happens when no solicitation types are available, but the described behavior is simple enough that 'returns' is reasonably transparent.

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 easy to scan, but 'Catalog entry' and 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' are somewhat redundant and cryptic, and the main functional detail is placed after them. It is concise but not optimally structured for an agent trying to understand the tool quickly.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent that needs to invoke the tool. It does not explain how to specify the order, what solicitation types are returned, what the response looks like, or how this differs from related tools like Messaging_getMessagingActionsForOrder. The deployment caveat is noted but not clarified.

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 has zero documented parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds meaningful guidance by saying an order must be specified, which implies an order identifier is needed. It does not name the parameter or provide a format, but this is still useful beyond the empty schema.

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 solicitation types that are available for an order that you specify.' This clearly identifies the operation's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like Messaging_getMessagingActionsForOrder, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description implies the tool should be used to retrieve solicitation types for a specified order. It also adds an environment constraint ('Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here'), which gives some context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when it should not be used beyond the vague 'not here'.

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