tool_get_local_sim_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output (operators, cost, etc.) and fallback behavior, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or is safe. It also lacks details on rate limits or data sources.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary paragraph, followed by a structured 'Args' section. It is concise but could be slightly more efficient by integrating parameter explanations without separate formatting. Overall, it earns its length.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format. It describes the content (operators, cost, etc.) but does not specify whether the guide returns structured data (e.g., JSON) or plain text. Coverage and fallback are addressed, but the exact output structure 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter with examples and reasoning. For instance, 'country' accepts multiple formats, 'trip_duration_days' affects recommendations, and 'data_heavy' conditions are clearly described, adding significant value 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 provides a local SIM/eSIM guide for a country, listing specific details like operators, cost, and activation. It specifies coverage (25+ countries) and fallback behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on flights, visas, or other travel aspects.

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 explains when to use the tool: when the user needs local SIM/eSIM guidance. It provides context on fallback (Airalo/Holafly) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools, though no direct alternative exists among the listed siblings.

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