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

The description discloses the two-step confirm behavior ('confirm: true to execute'), which is valuable beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the effect (restoring network access) and the dependency on prior suspension. Annotations already mark it as mutating but not destructive, so no contradiction exists.

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 short sentences deliver purpose, prerequisite, and execution flow without any filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the prerequisite, the intended action, and the confirmation step. Minor details such as response format or behavior if already active are absent, but they are not critical for selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 only restates the confirm behavior already present in the schema. It adds no additional meaning about the iccid parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore network access') and ties the action to its prerequisite state ('after suspend_esim'). The title and description clearly distinguish it from siblings like suspend_esim and cancel_esim by situating it in the suspend/reactivate lifecycle.

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 provides the context for use: only after suspend_esim. It does not list exclusions such as 'do not use for canceled eSIMs', but the lifecycle framing makes the appropriate use case clear enough for an agent to select it over the listed siblings.

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