get_custom_fulfillment_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the verb and resource, leaving the agent without information about what to expect from the call.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what is returned and any relevant context like pagination. It does not mention the return value, what a custom fulfillment service is, or how the 'after' and 'first' parameters affect results. This is a minimal description that leaves significant gaps for a tool with optional pagination params.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters ('after' as cursor, 'first' with range and default). The description does not add any parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch custom fulfillment services for the store' uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('custom fulfillment services') and scope ('for the store'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'get_fulfillment_services' by explicitly referring to 'custom' fulfillment services.

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 is for fetching custom fulfillment services, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_fulfillment_services' or other fulfillment-related tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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