Bloomy eSIM

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the calculation formula, WiFi factor, safety buffer, and rounding behavior, but does not describe output format or edge cases.

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 sentence that front-loads the formula and all key modifiers. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only calculator with no output schema, the formula and title imply a numeric MB estimate, but the description never states the return unit/format or the behavior of the optional wifi parameter. It is usable but leaves some important context implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps days, activities, and wifi into the formula, but does not define the WiFi factor values or the default when wifi is omitted. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 title clearly says the tool estimates how much data a trip needs, and the description gives the exact formula used. This distinguishes it from the sibling planning/search tools, though the description itself relies on the title for the verb and resource.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recommend_plan or search_plans. The formula implies a data-estimation use case, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the scoping fact that exactly one plan's details are returned, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Details of one plan') and then lists the included attributes. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary context; every element contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of return fields (data, validity, network, 5G, top-up, carriers, price, checkout link) provides a useful outline of what to expect. The main gap is a potential overlap with the sibling tool get_purchase_link: the description mentions a checkout link without clarifying how that relates to the dedicated purchase-link tool, creating mild ambiguity.

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 67%: days and lang are documented in the schema, but plan_id has no description. The tool description itself provides no additional parameter meaning, so it does not compensate for the undocumented plan_id or deepen understanding of the existing parameter descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource ('one plan') and enumerates its content (data, validity, network, 5G, top-up, carriers, price, checkout link). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like search_plans (which would return multiple plans) and recommend_plan (which suggests a plan), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get' within the description itself.

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 use for fetching details of a single plan, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as search_plans or get_purchase_link, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the title and schema 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 declare read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds useful context beyond that by explaining that no payment is collected by the tool and that a QR code will be emailed and appear in My Page after payment. This gives the agent a clearer picture of the external workflow without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences each carry information: what the link is, who pays, and what happens after payment. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple link-generation tool with no output schema, the description implicitly communicates the return value (a checkout link) and the surrounding payment/QR flow. It could be more explicit that the return is a URL, but it is otherwise complete given the annotations.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only refers generically to 'this plan' without elaborating plan_id, and it says nothing about days or lang. With schema coverage at 67%, the missing plan_id description is not compensated by the prose.

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 clearly states the action: produce a direct link to the final confirmation/checkout screen for a plan. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_plan or recommend_plan, which deliver plan data or recommendations rather than a purchase 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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the traveler should pay on their own, and it clarifies that the tool never takes payment. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the traveler-pays framing provides sufficient situational guidance.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add content-level context. It usefully states that the output includes steps, checks, and links, but it does not describe response format, localization behavior, or any additional constraints besides what the schema covers.

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 entire definition is one front-loaded sentence that moves from core content to secondary support links. No words are wasted and all key topics are listed 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?

For a simple, optional-parameter guide tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations and whose parameters are simple enums, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It tells the agent what will be returned (steps, checks, links) and no output schema is needed to understand the result.

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 50%: the lang parameter is described but device is not. The description partially compensates by listing 'iPhone or Android,' which maps to device's enum, but it does not explain lang's effect on the returned guide beyond what the schema already says. Overall, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 identifies a concrete resource—setup steps, pre-purchase checks, and links—and the title reinforces that this is the install/start guide. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools about plans, pricing, and coverage, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns.'

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would choose this tool for setup or pre-purchase questions, while alternatives like estimate_data or search_plans are about planning/selection. It does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or list exclusions, but the content description gives enough context for a reasonable choice.

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 destructiveHint, so safety disclosure is covered. The description adds no further behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or localization behavior, which is acceptable but provides no extra value beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentence with the key output fields front-loaded and a brief usage note. Every word earns its place and no redundant filler is present.

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 simple read-only list operation with two optional parameters, the description fully covers the returned fields and filter behavior. Annotations handle side-effect expectations, and no missing information would prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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%, with both 'lang' and 'query' already described in the input schema. The description only reinforces 'Use query to filter', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('destinations') and enumerates return fields: ISO code, localized name, number of plans, and lowest price. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like search_plans.

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 clear context: this returns countries with a dedicated plan and supports query filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the list-oriented purpose is obvious enough for an agent to route correctly.

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, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns exactly three categories (best_fit, budget, roomier), includes reasons, and provides checkout-confirmation links. It also explains itinerary extraction behavior, which is useful and does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with 'Best first call', immediately states required inputs, then summarizes the output shape. Every sentence adds value, and the itinerary-extraction instruction is placed where it is most actionable. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return structure (3 options, reasons, links). It also covers the main input decision (single destination vs destinations array) and the itinerary edge case. It does not explicitly discuss sibling-tool boundaries, but 'Best first call' plus the schema-rich details make it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some guidance on how parameters relate to the recommendation ('destination or all destinations', 'trip length', 'how the traveler uses data', and itinerary extraction to destinations + days), but it largely reinforces what the schema already explains rather than adding deep new semantic detail.

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 verb ('recommend') and resource ('best eSIM for a trip'), and clearly explains the output: up to 3 options with reasons and checkout links. 'Best first call' signals its position among sibling tools, so an agent can distinguish it from more specialized tools like get_plan or search_plans.

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 clear context for when to use it ('Best first call'), what inputs to gather (destination, trip length, data usage), and how to handle itineraries by extracting destinations and total days. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are sorted cheapest first, single-country plans precede multi-country ones, and filtering is supported. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not describe pagination or return 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 sentences with no wasted words. The action and resource are front-loaded, followed by ordering behavior and filter options. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, and filtering. It does not describe the return value shape or explicitly route to sibling tools, but the schema handles parameter details and the annotations cover safety.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description references filter dimensions (trip length, minimum GB, plan type) that map to min_days, min_gb, and plan_type, but it adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb ('List'), a clear resource ('plans for a destination'), and adds ordering and filtering details. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_destinations and get_plan by action and resource.

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 when to use the tool: when you need plans for a destination. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when to use recommend_plan or get_plan instead.

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