zwitchy-store

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

Description contradicts annotations: reads 'right now' implying real-time state, but openWorldHint=false indicates the tool may not reflect current world state. This is a serious inconsistency.

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 no fluff: first states purpose and context, second explains return values and reason codes. 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?

Input parameters are fully covered by schema (100%). Description explains return format (available true/false, reason) despite no output schema. Lacks mention of default quantity, but overall complete for a simple check 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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?

Clear verb 'Check' + specific resource 'plan availability'. Description distinguishes from siblings (get_plan, get_quote, search_plans) by focusing on real-time fulfillment gate. Explains return values and two reason codes.

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 when to use: to check if a plan can be fulfilled right now using the same checkout gate. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned, but the purpose is sufficiently scoped and distinct from siblings.

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 indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description confirms fetch operation without side effects and adds error behavior (plan_not_found). 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?

Single sentence with additional error behavior; no wasted words. Front-loaded with action verb and resource.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter tool: describes inputs, outputs (listed), error case, and safety profile via annotations. No output schema needed.

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 describes package_code as from search_plans. Description adds value by explaining what details are fetched with the parameter, though schema coverage is already 100%.

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 it fetches full public details for a single purchasable plan by package_code, listing specific fields returned (coverage, data allowance, validity, retail price). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_plans or get_quote.

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?

Implies use after obtaining package_code from search_plans, and mentions error for unknown/unsellable codes. Could explicitly state when to use alternatives, but context from sibling names helps.

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?

While annotations already provide readOnly and idempotent hints, the description adds detail about return values (subtotal, discount, total in cents, promo status) and confirms no side effects. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides important behavioral details efficiently.

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, the description adequately lists return fields. It covers the essential behavioral aspects (pricing logic, no order creation) and the parameters are fully documented in the schema, leaving no gaps for an agent to understand correct invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, the tool description reiterates the parameters' roles in the pricing operation but does not add significant new meaning 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'price' and resource 'order', and clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns pricing breakdown exactly as checkout would. It also states it's purely informational, which differentiates it from order creation tools.

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 tells when to use (to price an order exactly as checkout) and what it does not do (no order created). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context of siblings implies usage boundaries.

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 explains return format (USD cents, cheapest first, pagination via next_offset). Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. No contradictions; full transparency.

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 wasted words, clearly communicates the tool's purpose and key features. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 (7 params, no output schema), the description covers filter behavior, sorting, and pagination. Missing explicit mention of response fields, but sufficient for a search 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds minor context like 'prices in USD cents' and 'unlimited plans always match' but doesn't significantly enhance understanding 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?

The description clearly states it searches the travel eSIM plan catalog with specific filters and sorting. It distinguishes from siblings like check_availability or get_plan by focusing on browsing/searching with multiple criteria.

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 this tool is for searching/exploring plans, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. However, the context from sibling names and the description's specificity provides adequate guidance.

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