Queries active travel eSIM data plans. Refines by destination name, country code, or query keywords (e.g. JP, Japan, Japan 100MB, Europe 10GB, USA 30 Days).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| countryCode | No | Destination name, country code, or search keywords (e.g. Japan, JP, Japan 100MB, Europe 10GB). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'Queries' implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on idempotency, side effects, or error conditions beyond the simple query scope.
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 redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds unique value.
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 query tool, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, without output schema or annotations, it omits return structure, pagination, and error handling, which could be necessary for effective use.
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 describes the single parameter 'countryCode' with a clear description. The description adds value with concrete examples (JP, Japan, Japan 100MB, Europe 10GB, USA 30 Days), enriching the schema's information.
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 verb 'Queries' and resource 'active travel eSIM data plans', and differentiates from sibling tools like get_topup_packages by focusing on eSIM catalog queries.
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 usage for querying eSIM plans based on filters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like purchase_esim_with_wallet or get_topup_packages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: order management, catalog browsing, wallet operations, authentication, and support. No two tools have overlapping purposes, making selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., get_esim_catalog, purchase_esim_with_wallet, verify_agent_otp). There is no mixing of conventions.
With 14 tools, the surface is well-scoped for an eSIM service: catalog browsing, purchasing, wallet management, authentication, order history, and support. No tool feels redundant or missing.
The set covers the core eSIM lifecycle (browse, buy, cancel, top-up, monitor usage, wallet, auth, support). A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool to retrieve a single order detail beyond the paginated list, but agents can work around.
