get_esim_usageCheck stored data usage and validity for an eSIM by ICCID or order reference to monitor remaining data and expiry.
Stored data usage and validity for one eSIM (cheap; fresh as of the last sync). Identify by ICCID or order reference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iccid | No | ||
| order_reference | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new traits not in the annotations — cost profile and data freshness ('fresh as of the last sync') — which shape an agent's decision to call it.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and scoped by 'one eSIM'. No padding or redundant restatement of the title.
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 no-output-schema read tool, the description names the returned fields (data usage, validity), the unit of operation, and the identifying keys. Only the interaction between the two optional identifiers and expected return shape details remain unstated.
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 schema alone says nothing about the two params. The description compensates by stating both can identify the eSIM ('by ICCID or order reference') and, via required=false, that neither is mandatory. It does not clarify precedence when both are supplied or expected formats.
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 ('Stored data usage and validity for one eSIM') and pinpoints the identifying key. The word 'Stored' plus sibling name get_esim_live_status makes the boundary clear to an agent without opening either schema.
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 parenthetical 'cheap; fresh as of the last sync' implicitly signals this cached read as the lightweight choice, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.