router_run_ussd

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real weight: it reveals that a 'Network Guard safety check' exists and can be bypassed via force, which is valuable non-obvious behavior. However, it omits key traits — whether USSD sessions can be interactive/stateful, whether queries may incur carrier charges or mutate account state, and what happens when the guard blocks a call.

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?

One front-loaded sentence establishes the action, then a compact Args block. The Args lines restate schema field names but add meaning (examples, guard bypass), so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the two parameters are covered. Still, for a tool that talks to the carrier and can bypass a safety mechanism with no annotations to lean on, the description should say more about failure modes and the implications of force.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does reasonably: code is explained as a USSD string with concrete examples, and force is explained as a safety-check bypass. It falls short only on what the Network Guard actually checks and the risk of bypassing it.

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 ('Executes a USSD query on the cellular SIM card') and adds concrete example codes ('*344#' for Hutch quota, '*123#' for balance) that make the effect unmistakable. No sibling tool touches USSD, so the boundary is clear without comparison.

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 examples imply the use case (checking balance/quota), but the description never states when to prefer this over siblings like router_get_data_limit, nor when it should not be used. It also doesn't explain when setting force=True is warranted beyond naming the Network Guard check.

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