get_shipment_receiving_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a stub and hosted endpoint only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or data availability.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second warns about stub. Could improve by front-loading key words like 'get receiving status' but overall efficient.

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?

Despite 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides almost no context about the tool's usage, filtering, or return format. The stub warning helps but does not compensate for missing completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or usage context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 tool retrieves per-SKU receiving progress, which is a specific resource. It adds a label '[Inventory / read]' to indicate domain and action. However, it lacks explanation of what 'receiving progress' entails, and the stub note may confuse about actual functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_inbound_shipments or get_fba_inventory. The only note is that it's a stub, which indicates it may not be the primary tool for the task.

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