Get eSIM account profile

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

Even with annotations marking the tool as readOnly and idempotent, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: contact details come back masked, tokens and internal session data are never included, and the response may include 'authentication_required'. This is well beyond the abstract annotation flags and gives the agent operationally relevant expectations about output content and edge cases.

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 clear section markers (WHEN, PRIVACY) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides essential guidance: the trigger condition, the authentication fallback, the masking behavior, and the privacy rule. No filler or redundant information is present, making it appropriately concise while thorough.

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 tool has a rich output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), so the description need not explain return values. It covers the user-facing purpose, the trigger condition, the authentication failure mode, and privacy constraints. Combined with the annotations and schema, the description fully equips the agent to select and call this 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters (locale and currency) with descriptions stating they are optional language/currency tags. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond this, but it also doesn't need to — schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully describes the parameters.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Read the signed-in user's own profile and wallet balance from the eSIM platform.' This clearly distinguishes get_user_profile from sibling tools like purchase or login tools, which have different resources and actions. It also scopes the tool to the signed-in user, preventing confusion with other profile-related functionality.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when the user asks about their account, profile, name, or balance while signed in. It also provides an exclusion/alternative: if the tool returns 'authentication_required', the agent should start the login flow with request_login_otp. This is a clear, actionable usage guideline that sets expectations and directs behavior.

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