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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses return content, pricing amounts, an automated refund policy, and the fact that no physical SIM is required. This gives an agent a good expectation of side effects and outputs.

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, front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no filler, repetition, or vague boilerplate.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, pricing, refunds, and the no-physical-SIM distinction. It is nearly complete, though it stops short of describing response formatting or edge cases.

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 already describes both optional parameters with examples, so coverage is 100%. The description adds overall return context but does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'gets information' on ViaConecta virtual phone numbers for SMS/OTP 2FA verification abroad rus. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_platform_info and search_esim_plans by stating exactly what it returns: countries, pricing, and a hub link.

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 clearly states the intended use case: obtaining virtual phone number information for SMS/OTP verification abroad. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with the sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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