IbiPoint eSIM Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, externally-sourced nature is covered. The description adds a useful enumeration of what the response contains (data, validity, network, top-up, reviews, link), but since an output schema exists, this is supplementary rather than essential.

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?

A single economical sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, with the field list compressed into a trailing enumeration. No filler.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description needs only to identify the resource and scope, which it does. It lacks any routing hint toward search_esim_plans for id discovery, a minor gap given only three siblings.

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 both product_id and language are already documented in the schema, including the landing-page language/currency effect of language. The description only gestures at product_id, adding nothing beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (get) and resource (full details for one IbiPoint plan) scoped to a single product id, and enumerates the returned facets. This contrasts implicitly with the bulk-orientation of search_esim_plans, though the sibling is never named.

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 phrase 'by product id' implies the tool is used after obtaining an id, and the schema notes the id comes from search_esim_plans, but the description itself gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or naming of the alternative search flow.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior (result ordering by IbiPoint Data Rating, prices and a direct link included), but says nothing about rate limits, result caps, or empty-destination behavior, and the return detail is partly redundant with the existing 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope followed by usage. The closing 'with prices and a direct link' is mildly redundant given the output schema, but nothing else is wasted.

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 an output schema, the description supplies purpose, scope, trigger context, and result ordering. Only the routing to sibling tools (details vs. checkout) is left unstated.

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 all four parameters (destination, type, currency, language) are already well documented, including the enum and the currency/language derivation. The description only restates the destination scope and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('eSIM plans') scoped to a destination, and adds concrete output semantics (best-value, sorted by IbiPoint Data Rating, with prices and a link). It is clearly distinct from the siblings get_plan_details and start_checkout, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Use when a user wants mobile data abroad.' However it gives no when-not guidance and never mentions the alternatives (get_plan_details for a specific plan, start_checkout to buy), so an agent must infer the boundary between searching, inspecting, and purchasing.

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/openWorldHint=true and are not contradicted — this tool only mints a URL and mutates nothing server-side. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: accepted payment methods, optional discount code, no-account requirement, post-payment email delivery, and the absence of in-chat order tracking.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return value, then layered with payment and delivery details. Slightly heavy with secondary facts (payment methods, discount code, email) but every sentence is relevant to setting customer expectations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description helpfully names buy_url, plan name, and price anyway. Combined with annotation coverage and a simple two-parameter schema, the definition gives the agent enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 both parameters (product_id, language) are fully documented in the schema and the description adds no new syntax or format detail. The mention of an 'optional discount code' is not a parameter at all, so it adds no semantic value for invocation.

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 and resource — handing the customer to the IbiPoint shop to buy one plan and returning a buy_url — which is unmistakably different from the lookup-oriented siblings get_plan_details and search_esim_plans. An agent can identify this as the conversion step without opening any schema.

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 establishes clear context (buying one plan, no account needed, eSIM emailed after payment) that implies when to invoke it after plan discovery. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools or stating 'call after search_esim_plans', so the routing guidance is inferred rather than spelled out.

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