Gitsim Chat

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it returns a Stripe checkout URL, which implies a payment flow and side effect (purchase). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 plus a return statement, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every part provides 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?

Given the tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purchase action, the description adequately covers purpose and return. However, it could briefly mention that the checkout URL requires redirect or confirmation, but as is it is sufficiently complete for this complexity.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description in the input schema (iccid, session_key, package_code). The tool description does not add further meaning or constraints beyond what is already documented, so 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 clearly states the action ('Purchase'), the resource ('a top-up data package for an existing eSIM'), and the return value ('Returns a Stripe checkout URL'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like 'search_topup_packages' (which searches) and 'create_order' (which likely creates a different order type).

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 after searching for top-up packages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks explicit guidance for an AI agent.

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?

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a read operation. No contradictions, but it adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey (e.g., no mention of rate limits or session key validity).

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by requirements. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description is functional but lacks hints about return values (e.g., balance unit or format). Acceptable but not complete.

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%, and the description merely restates the required parameters without adding new meaning or format hints. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents parameters.

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 tool checks remaining data balance on an eSIM, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like buy_topup or check_order_status.

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 lists required inputs (session key and ICCID) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. This is adequate but lacks contextual usage advice.

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?

The annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating no modifications. The description reinforces this with 'check'. It adds the nuance that it applies to the 'most recent order', but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as response format, error states, or rate limits. With the annotation covering safety, the description's extra context is minimal.

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 consists of two short sentences, each conveying essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with the prerequisite. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, read-only action), the description is functional but lacks completeness. It does not explain what the status check returns (e.g., a string value, object, success/failure) or how to interpret results. It also does not clarify what happens if there is no 'most recent order' (e.g., error condition). Additional context would improve agent decision-making.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'session_key'. The description's phrase 'session key from a previous tool call' aligns exactly with the schema description, providing no additional semantic details beyond what is already in the schema. Thus it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 ('Check the status') and the specific resource ('the most recent order'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'create_order' or 'check_data_balance', which focus on different resources or actions. The use of 'most recent' adds a precise scope.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires a session key from a previous tool call'), which provides some guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_data_balance' or 'search_packages', nor does it specify what type of previous tool call is expected. No exclusion or alternative guidance is given.

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?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool returns a Stripe checkout URL rather than completing the order, and explains session key handling (requires one from a prior call or auto-creates). Annotations already indicate mutations but not this specific flow.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each carrying essential information: the core action and the key behavioral details (return value and session key handling). 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the session key dependency. It provides enough context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without additional explanation.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description reiterates the session key behavior but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'order for an eSIM package'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'buy_topup' by specifying it returns a Stripe checkout URL for payment, and from 'check_order_status' by focusing on order creation.

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 provides clear contextual guidance by stating it requires a session key or creates one automatically, indicating it follows a previous tool call. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'buy_topup' or state when to prefer this tool over others, so it slightly lacks exclusionary 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds detail on the content returned (product knowledge, pricing, etc.). It does not describe side effects, authentication needs, or output format. For a read-only tool with no parameters, this is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentences: first lists what the tool returns, second gives a usage directive ('Call this FIRST'). No wasted words, front-loaded with key information, excellent structure.

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 description is adequate for a simple knowledge tool. It specifies the categories of information retrieved but does not detail the output format (e.g., text summary, structured data). Given no output schema, a bit more detail on what to expect could improve 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description could optionally note that no arguments are needed, but its absence is not penalized.

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 tool retrieves Gitsim product knowledge, pricing, IP routing, and eSIM fundamentals. It is distinct from sibling tools which are transactional (e.g., create_order, buy_topup). The explicit verb 'Get' and resource scope make purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this FIRST before helping a customer' and explains the benefit ('so you understand the product'). It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, though the sibling tools are clearly separate.

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, and the description adds a useful behavioral trait: 'No authentication required.' No contradictions. Could mention error handling or response format, but still good.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded with key purpose.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and clear annotations, the description covers purpose and auth. Lacks mention of return format, but still adequate.

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 description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter 'package_id'.

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 ('Get details') and the resource ('specific eSIM package by its ID'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like buy_topup or search_packages.

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 mentions 'No authentication required,' providing a helpful context, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_packages or list_esims.

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, and the description adds the prerequisite of a session key and specifies it lists 'delivered' eSIMs (not pending). This provides some behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentences with the main action upfront. Every word earns its place with no 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 list tool with one parameter and readOnly annotation, the description is largely complete. It could mention the output format or scope, but the core information is sufficient.

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 a clear description of the session_key parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'customer's delivered eSIMs', providing a specific and unambiguous purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on purchases, balances, or orders.

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 notes a prerequisite ('Requires a session key'), which is helpful but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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?

The description not only aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation (search is read-only) but also adds significant behavioral context: it states 'No auth required', explains package types and IP routing behaviors, and mentions sorting by price. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 well-structured with sections and bullet points, making it easy to scan. It is fairly long due to the necessary detail, but every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure compensates.

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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: sorting, pagination, package types, IP routing, and a prerequisite. It lacks details about error handling or rate limits, but overall it provides enough context 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the practical implications of package types (e.g., daily with top-up) and IP routing (e.g., 'hk' blocks TikTok). These details are critical for correct parameter selection and are not present in the schema 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 clearly states the tool searches for eSIM data packages by country. It specifies it returns up to 10 packages per page sorted by price. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool search_topup_packages, though the focus on 'eSIM data packages' implies a distinction.

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 advises calling get_business_context first and explains package types and IP routing in detail. This provides context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, but the guidance is clear and helpful.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the description indicating a read operation. The description provides no additional behavioral details beyond what annotations and schema already imply, so it adds limited value.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes key prerequisites. 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description could elaborate on what the result looks like (e.g., list of package IDs or details). It is adequate for a simple search with annotations, but missing output context reduces 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% with both parameters described. The description does not add new meaning beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool finds compatible top-up packages for an existing eSIM, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_packages that may not be eSIM-specific. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search_packages.

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 mentions prerequisites (session key and ICCID) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_packages or buy_topup. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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