kovitel_calculate_esim_data_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context by framing the output as a "recommended" allowance and an "estimated" cost, which signals advisory/estimate rather than a guaranteed price, but it does not explain assumptions, data sources, limitations, or whether there are any side effects.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action and the three expected outputs are stated immediately, and every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool calculates.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the three key return components: recommended data allowance, carrier choice, and estimated cost. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly, though the description could say more about the response format and calculation assumptions.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents duration_days, travel_style, and primary_regions thoroughly. The description only adds the high-level notion of a travel itinerary and does not add format, enum, or interaction details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It uses a specific verb ("Calculate") and names the exact recommendation outputs: data allowance in GB/day, carrier choice, and estimated cost. This calculation/recommendation purpose is clearly distinct from the sibling tools for compatibility checks, APN lookup, network benchmarks, and emergency contacts, even though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase "for a given travel itinerary" implies the usage context is trip planning and plan recommendation. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of whether it should be used alongside compatibility checking or before purchasing an eSIM.

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