kovitel_get_carrier_apn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' strongly implies a read-only operation and the description discloses the returned content, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, whether data is live or static, or any access/latency characteristics.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's output and domain.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, domain, and returned artifacts. Minor gaps remain around data freshness and whether the rescue steps are always included, but the essential information is present.

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%; the carrier parameter is fully documented with an enum and default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieve official APN configuration and connection rescue steps for Vietnam cellular carriers. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as compatibility checks, data-plan calculations, benchmarks, and emergency contacts, though it does not explicitly name or contrast 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?

Usage is implied by the mention of APN configuration and connection rescue for Vietnam carriers, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The single optional carrier parameter with a default is documented in the schema, not in the description.

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