Get User Plan

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds valuable non-annotated context by disclosing that eSIM activation codes and PIN/PUK are redacted, and by pointing to the alternative tool for privileged access. It does not, however, describe error behavior or precise authorization conditions.

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. The core return contents are front-loaded, followed by the redaction caveat and the alternative tool. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description does well by listing the key returned fields and the redaction behavior. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, though it omits what happens on invalid or unknown userId.

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%, and the schema already explains that userId addresses the plan by its user. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the resource and scope: a full plan for a user, including status, local/travel numbers, line state, and SIM ICCID. It distinguishes itself from telgea_get_sim_credentials by noting redaction, but does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like telgea_list_user_plans or telgea_find_user_plan.

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 one explicit routing rule: use telgea_get_sim_credentials if you are allowed to see redacted eSIM codes and PIN/PUK. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus telgea_list_user_plans or telgea_find_user_plan, which is a notable gap given the sibling list.

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