roamzy_get_esim

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

The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds critical behavioral detail: 'This tool does NOT return a ready-to-display image. Instead, qr_payload contains the LPA URI string.' It further discloses that lpa_url is only for same-phone installation and explains the recovery flow for anonymous sessions. This goes beyond the annotations and is consistent with them.

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 very long, with multiple paragraphs and warnings. While it is well-structured and each section serves a purpose, it is not concise; it could be trimmed by moving some instructions to separate documentation. The front-loaded purpose is good, but overall length detracts.

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?

The description covers every edge case an agent might encounter: QR rendering, LPA fallback, anonymous session recovery, lost claim_url, and support escalation. Even with an output schema present, this additional context is essential and complete.

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 fully describes the single parameter esim_id as 'Internal eSIM ULID returned by list_esims or create_order. Never shown to the user.' The description adds no new semantic information about this parameter beyond the schema, but it reinforces that internal IDs should not be shown to the user. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 opens with a clear statement: 'Get a specific eSIM by id, including msisdn, status, balance, and the activation block (qr_payload + lpa_url).' This specifies the verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like roamzy_list_esims, so it misses the full distinction criterion.

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 description provides explicit usage instructions: when to generate QR locally, when to use lpa_url as a fallback, when to re-surface claim_url, and when to call roamzy_support. It also explicitly says 'call roamzy_support, not web search' for support follow-ups, giving clear alternatives.

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