Get live eSIM status (network query)

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is free. The description adds genuinely new context: the data comes from a live mobile-network query and is expensive, which is a cost/latency trait an agent needs. It could say more about failure modes or rate limits.

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 dense sentences with the value proposition front-loaded and the cost caveat at the end where it belongs. The field enumeration is somewhat long but each item maps to real returned data, 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?

With annotations handling safety, 100% schema coverage on the sole parameter, and no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields is exactly the compensation needed. An agent has everything required to decide and call 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 coverage is 100% and the single ICCID parameter is fully documented in the schema (length constraints, format). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get LIVE status straight from the mobile network') and enumerates the returned fields (lifecycle status, install state, last network, IMEI, usage dates, data used). This clearly distinguishes it from list_esims and get_esim_usage, which are not network queries.

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use ('diagnosis: "no data", "is it installed?"') and when-not ('not routinely'), plus the cost signal 'Expensive'. Strong guidance, though it doesn't name a cheaper sibling alternative to fall back on.

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