VendorDirectFulfillmentShippingV1_getCustomerInvoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose two notable traits: this is a catalog entry, and execution happens in the user's Kuudo deployment rather than in this environment; 'Returns' also implies a read-only operation. However, it omits error behavior, response shape, and authentication or availability implications.

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 front-loads purpose and deployment context in three sentences. 'Catalog entry' and 'not here' are somewhat ambiguous, and 'that you specify' is padded, but there is little wasted text.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight, but it stops at the basic return statement and a cryptic deployment note. It does not clarify how an agent should invoke a tool that runs 'not here,' nor which of the many sibling versions (V1 vs 20211228) should be used, making the call context incomplete.

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 declares zero properties, so the description's mention of purchaseOrderNumber is the only documentation of the lookup key, which is valuable. It explains the parameter's semantic role but not its type, requiredness, or location, so it is helpful without being complete.

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 operation: returning a customer invoice for a purchaseOrderNumber, which is enough to identify the tool as a single-invoice getter. The 'Catalog entry / runs in Kuudo, not here' framing adds deployment context but does not explicitly differentiate this V1 tool from the similarly-named 20211228_getCustomerInvoice or the plural getCustomerInvoices sibling.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to select this tool over its siblings. It implies use when you need one invoice by purchase order number, and notes it runs in a Kuudo deployment, but never names alternatives or conditions such as 'use getCustomerInvoices for multiple invoices' or 'prefer the 20211228 version here.'

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