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.