Find User Plan

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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that eSIM activation codes and PIN/PUK are redacted and pointing to the credential-specific tool with a permission caveat.

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 tightly written sentences, with the lookup method front-loaded and the redaction/alternative note immediately after. No wasted language.

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 small lookup tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the key identifiers and the important redaction behavior. The remaining gap is the lack of guidance about requiring or prioritizing at least one identifier.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does map the three inputs to email, E.164 phone number, and ICCID, but it does not clarify whether one identifier is required, how conflicts are resolved, or any precedence rules.

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 — finding one user's plan — and names the accepted lookup identifiers. It does not distinguish this from close siblings like telgea_get_user_plan or telgea_list_user_plans, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives clear usage context by listing email, E.164 phone number, and ICCID as lookup keys, and it routes credential access to telgea_get_sim_credentials. However, it does not explain when to use this instead of telgea_get_user_plan or telgea_list_user_plans.

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