Read a prepared eSIM quote

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, but the description adds critical context: it reads local state only, changes nothing, and handles expiring quotes with guidance to offer re-preparation and clarify no charge occurred. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear WHEN prefix and concise sentences. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage triggers, parameter source, behavioral note, and expiration handling. No fluff.

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?

Despite having an output schema (so return values are covered), the description fully covers purpose, usage, local-state behavior, and edge cases like expired quotes. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description for quote_id already covers the 'returned by prepare_purchase' and 'never invent' guidance, matching the description. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new parameter meaning, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads back a prepared quote, specifying the exact data returned (plan, amount, payment method, validity). This distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_purchase and confirm_purchase by focusing on reading local state.

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?

Explicit WHEN section with example user phrasings ('show me my prepared purchase', 'what was that going to cost'). It instructs to pass the quote reference from prepare_purchase and contrasts with platform-contacting tools by noting it never contacts the eSIM platform.

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