List International Options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('browse') and indicates live data, but does not explicitly state it has no side effects, what happens with partial or empty parameters, or any rate limits or pagination. The hierarchical navigation is mentioned but not fully specified.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the hierarchy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not state what is returned at each level (e.g., list of countries when empty, list of plans when operator_id provided), nor does it specify the required sequence or behavior with empty parameters. An agent lacks enough detail to call the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps the parameters (country, product_type_id, operator_id) to the hierarchy, giving each meaning and indicating the traversal order. However, it does not clarify formats, required combinations, or whether levels can be skipped, leaving some ambiguity.

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 browses the live international top-up catalogue and specifies the hierarchy (country → product type → operator → priced plan). It uses a specific verb 'browse' and a clear resource, distinguishing it from domestic list_plans implicitly, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 'browse the live international top-up catalogue' and the hierarchy, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_plans or other siblings. No mention of when not to use it or what conditions warrant it.

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