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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — it does not say what happens when both keys are null, when the customer is not found, or whether remote lookups have limits.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and resource. Every word earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile; for a trivial two-parameter lookup the definition is nearly sufficient. The only omission is behavior when neither key is supplied, which prevents a full 5.

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 description coverage is 100% (both cust_id and cust_num are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the same two identifiers and adds no format, mutual-exclusion, or precedence detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('Kinetic customer'), and the identifier types used for lookup. It does not explicitly contrast against get_sales_order/get_part/get_shipments, but the distinct resource noun makes selection unambiguous without that.

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?

Implies usage by naming the two lookup keys (CustNum or CustID), from which an agent infers this is a single-customer retrieval tool. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of which key to prefer, and no alternatives for lookups by other attributes.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior when the PartNum does not exist, no auth or rate context, no hint that results come from the live Kinetic/Epicor ERP.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the verb and lookup key come first. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified for anything beyond the basic happy path.

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 is simple: one fully documented param, an output schema defining the return shape, and annotations covering safety. Given that structured richness, the description is nearly sufficient, with the only gap being error/not-found behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Epicor PartNum.' The description names PartNum but adds no format, case-sensitivity, or company/plant scoping detail beyond the schema, so this is the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (Kinetic part) plus the lookup key (PartNum), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It does not differentiate from siblings, though the sibling names (get_sales_order, get_customer, get_shipments) target distinct resources so no confusion arises.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or permission note, and no mention of alternatives for retrieving part data. The agent must infer that this is the single-part lookup path from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint true; openWorldHint true), so the bar is lower. The description adds a useful structural note that the read spans header, lines, and releases rather than just the header, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or lookup failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause (verb, resource composition, key parameter) earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile. For a one-parameter read the description is sufficient, with the only shortfall being the absence of usage context relative to sibling getters.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single well-documented required parameter (Epicor OrderNum). 'by OrderNum' merely restates what the schema already provides, adding no format or domain meaning beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and a precisely scoped resource (Kinetic sales order header, lines, and releases), keyed by OrderNum. The resource is naturally distinct from siblings get_customer/get_part/get_shipments, though the description never names them explicitly.

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 a single-record lookup via 'by OrderNum' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing away from the sibling get_* tools. Nothing tells an agent whether this is the right tool for listing or searching orders versus fetching one by key.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with "Never writes CustShip" and names the table it reads, which adds entity-level detail beyond the annotations. It still says nothing about permissions, volume, or result shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource, followed by the write-safety guarantee. Nothing is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description covers what is read, the scope, and the read-only guarantee, leaving only minor gaps such as ordering/pagination behavior.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Epicor OrderNum."), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description corroborates that the read is scoped "for an order" but adds no format or boundary detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read customer shipment pack lines (ShipDtls) for an order. The underlying entity is named concretely (ShipDtls), which is more precise than the title alone. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_sales_order, but the resource is unambiguous enough to keep them apart.

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?

"For an order" implies the tool is used when you have an order number and need its shipment lines, which is reasonable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer the routing.

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