getSitesGatewaysSimCardUsed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Get SIM card used by a gateway,' which implicitly indicates a read operation but does not specify whether it is destructive, requires specific permissions, or if it caches results. It lacks any behavioral context beyond the verb 'Get'. A read-only hint would be helpful but is absent.

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?

The description is extremely concise: a single sentence of 6 words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no unnecessary information. Every word 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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what a 'SIM card used by a gateway' means in the context of the network, what the output looks like, or any potential side effects or errors. The agent lacks contextual cues to use this tool correctly. For completeness, it should at least mention that it returns SIM card details like IMSI or ICCID.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (siteId, customHeaders, gatewayMac). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3 because the schema is descriptive enough, and the description does not improve 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get SIM card used by a gateway.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('SIM card used by a gateway'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like getGatewayDetail or getSitesGatewaysGeneralConfig, which might also return SIM card information. The purpose is clear but not differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, or any reference to sibling tools that might provide similar information. An agent would have to infer usage context based solely on the tool name and description, which is insufficient for making an informed choice among many similar 'get' tools.

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