roamzy_list_esims

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing it as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these annotations: it instructs the agent on how to present eSIMs in user-visible text (use msisdn, not the internal id), preventing misuse of identifiers. This is meaningful additional transparency for agent behavior, though it stops short of describing pagination or ordering.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the core action, then adds a critical usage note in an 'IMPORTANT' callout. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the function and output fields, the second and third provide crucial user-interface guidance. No redundancy or filler.

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 list operation with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It names the key output fields (status, balance, msisdn) and provides necessary context about which identifier to surface. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the output schema presumably details the full response. The description leaves no significant gaps for an agent to invoke and present results correctly.

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 zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does clarify output field semantics (msisdn vs id), but that falls outside parameter semantics. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description adequately complements the schema.

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 a specific action and resource: 'List the authenticated user's eSIMs' and includes the returned attributes (status, balance, msisdn). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like roamzy_get_esim (which presumably fetches a single eSIM) and roamzy_me (user profile). The verb 'List' plus the resource 'eSIMs' leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage: it lists all eSIMs for the authenticated user, which is appropriate when a user needs an overview of their eSIMs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over roamzy_get_esim or other siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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