Gitsim Chat

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read operation (readOnlyHint: false), and the description adds crucial behavioral context: it returns a 'Stripe checkout URL' rather than completing the transaction immediately, which is essential given the lack of output schema.

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 zero waste: first establishes the operation and scope, second discloses the return value. Front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

Compensates effectively for the missing output schema by specifying the Stripe checkout URL return type. Annotations provide safety context (non-destructive write). Could benefit from mentioning payment flow completion or error states, but adequate for the 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description text adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

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 specific action ('Purchase'), resource ('top-up data package'), and target ('existing eSIM'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_order' (likely for new eSIMs) and 'search_topup_packages' (discovery vs. purchase).

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?

Provides clear context ('for an existing eSIM') that implies when to use this tool versus initial purchase workflows, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion conditions.

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 aligns by using 'Check' (read operation). The description adds prerequisite context (session key dependency) and specifies 'remaining' balance, but doesn't disclose rate limits, caching behavior, or error scenarios beyond what the schema and annotations 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second states prerequisites. Efficiently front-loaded with no redundant 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?

Adequate for a simple read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations. However, there is no output schema, and the description doesn't indicate the return format (bytes, MB, string representation), leaving a minor gap in 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists both parameters but adds no additional semantic detail (format, examples, sourcing) beyond what's 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?

Clear verb ('Check') and resource ('remaining data balance on an eSIM'). Implicitly distinguishes from siblings like check_order_status (orders vs data) and list_esims (listing vs balance inquiry), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

States prerequisites ('Requires a session key'), implying it must be called after obtaining a session from a previous tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_package or when not to use it (e.g., if balance is already cached).

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the session key requirement (stateful authentication) not found in annotations, but does not describe return values, possible status codes, or error conditions.

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 zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second sentence provides the critical prerequisite. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only operation) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and purpose. It could be improved by indicating what status values or order details are returned.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the session_key parameter. The description reinforces the requirement but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema's explanation.

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 specific action (Check), resource (order status), and scope (most recent order). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'create_order' by describing a read operation vs. a write operation.

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 states the prerequisite ('Requires a session key from a previous tool call'), implying it must be used in a workflow sequence. However, it does not explicitly name which preceding tool to use (e.g., create_order) or when not to use it.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: false), the description adds critical behavioral context: it returns a 'Stripe checkout URL' (external payment flow) and explains session key auto-creation logic. This disclosure of the payment integration pattern is valuable operational context not evident in structured fields.

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 sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 discloses return value (Stripe URL), sentence 3 explains session handling. Front-loaded and dense with actionable information.

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 no output schema exists, the description compensates well by explaining the Stripe checkout URL return value. It omits mention of referral_code, though the schema documents this. Sufficient for a 3-parameter creation tool with good schema coverage.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that session_key comes from 'structuredContent' in previous tool calls—a semantic detail not present in the schema that helps the agent understand data flow between tools.

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 ('Create') with clear resource ('order for an eSIM package'), distinguishing it from siblings like buy_topup, check_order_status, and search_packages. It precisely scopes the domain to eSIM 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 provides implicit usage context by explaining session key prerequisites ('from a previous tool call') and auto-creation behavior, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus buy_topup or how it fits in the order workflow with check_order_status.

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, confirming safe read operations. The description adds the specific content areas covered but does not disclose return format (structured object vs. text), caching behavior, or response size—critical gaps given the lack of output schema.

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 zero waste. Front-loaded with the function (what it gets), followed by usage instruction. Every word 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?

Without an output schema, the description partially compensates by listing knowledge domains (product, pricing, routing), giving the agent some expectation of content. However, it lacks return format details (JSON structure, string length) that would complete the picture for a context retrieval tool.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter elaboration since none exist.

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 specifies the knowledge domains retrieved (Gitsim product knowledge, pricing model, IP routing, eSIM fundamentals) and uses a specific verb ('Get'). It implicitly distinguishes from transactional siblings (buy, check, create) by focusing on knowledge retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing guidance ('Call this FIRST before helping a customer'), establishing it as a prerequisite tool. This implies when to use (before customer interactions) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling alternatives.

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, confirming safe read operation. The description adds valuable operational context that authentication is not required, which is not in the annotations. However, it omits error behavior (e.g., invalid ID) and what 'details' are returned.

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 zero waste: first states purpose, second states auth requirement. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 this is a simple single-parameter read operation with readOnly annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose and operational constraints. Minor gap: does not mention behavior when package_id is not found.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('The package ID to look up'), the schema fully documents the parameter. The description references the parameter ('by its ID') but does not add syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 specific verb ('Get details'), resource ('eSIM package'), and scope ('by its ID'). The phrase 'specific... by its ID' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling 'search_packages', indicating this is for direct lookup rather than discovery.

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?

Provides one usage constraint ('No authentication required'), but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this versus 'search_packages' or other siblings. Usage relative to alternatives is implied by 'by its ID' but not stated explicitly.

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, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the 'delivered' filter (excluding pending/cancelled eSIMs) and reinforcing the session key dependency. It omits details on pagination or empty result handling.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste: the first states purpose, the second states the critical prerequisite. It is appropriately front-loaded and sized for the tool's complexity.

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 simplicity (single parameter, read-only operation with annotations), the description covers the essential functional scope and authentication requirements. While it lacks output format details (no output schema exists), it sufficiently describes the filtering behavior ('delivered') to set correct expectations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the session_key parameter. The description restates this requirement but adds no additional semantic details about the parameter format, valid sources, or expiration beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 specific action (List) and resource (customer's delivered eSIMs). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_package' or 'check_order_status' within the text itself, though the functional distinction is clear.

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 a critical prerequisite (requires a session key from a previous call), implying sequencing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'check_order_status' or warnings about when not to use it.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral details: 'No auth required,' return limit ('up to 5'), sorting ('by price'), and specific blocking warnings ('TikTok app and Facebook app are BLOCKED' for hk routing). It discloses business logic implications that annotations cannot capture.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (intro, Package types, IP routing). Front-loaded with essential constraints (limit, auth, prerequisite). The Asia-specific IP routing details, while lengthy, are necessary for correct tool invocation. Minor deduction for density, but every sentence serves the agent's decision-making.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates adequately by explaining what returns (count, sorting) and providing domain context for complex parameters (routing types, package types). Mention of the prerequisite tool covers the dependency gap. Could be improved by describing the return object structure.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by contextualizing enum values—explaining that 'regular' is 'Best for most travelers' and 'breakout' should be 'ALWAYS recommend by default.' This semantic guidance aids decision-making beyond raw schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search for eSIM data packages') and clarifies scope ('by country', 'up to 5 packages sorted by price'). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_package' (single retrieval) or 'search_topup_packages' (different domain).

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?

Explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Call get_business_context first to understand IP routing and package types.' This provides clear sequencing guidance. Also implicitly guides selection through detailed 'Best for...' recommendations for package types and routing options.

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 readOnlyHint annotation confirms this is a safe read operation, so the description's burden is lower. It adds value by specifying 'compatible' packages (filtering behavior) and prerequisite requirements (session_key dependency). However, it omits details about return format, pagination, or what makes packages 'compatible'.

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 zero waste: purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, prerequisites in the second. Every word earns its place—'compatible' modifies the search scope, and 'existing' clarifies the eSIM state requirement.

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?

Appropriately complete for a 2-parameter read-only search tool. The description covers prerequisites and purpose adequately given the simple flat schema. While no output schema exists, the description isn't expected to fully document return values when none are provided in the schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters (ICCID purpose and session_key origin). The description restates these requirements without adding syntax details, validation rules, or examples, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Find'), resource ('top-up packages'), and scope ('for an existing eSIM') that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'search_packages' (initial packages) and 'buy_topup' (purchase action). The term 'compatible' adds necessary specificity about the filtering logic.

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 context by specifying 'existing eSIM' (prerequisite state) and listing required credentials ('Requires a session key'), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. It doesn't clarify the workflow relationship to 'buy_topup' (search-then-buy pattern).

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