Brands, provinces, shops, operators

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that this is an id-lookup dependency for other tools, but says nothing about response size, ordering, or whether names accompany ids; with annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the trigger condition and one caveat. No filler, and the most actionable guidance (when to call it) is not buried.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does communicate the return shape ('list the ids'), which is the key thing an agent needs. It leaves open whether the response pairs ids with display names or how long the lists are, a minor gap for a single-enum lookup tool.

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% and there is one parameter, but the description supplies meaning beyond the bare enum: 'shops' is qualified as 'price-listing shops' and 'operators' as 'SIM operator prefixes', which disambiguates what those enum values actually enumerate. The `what` parameter name itself is never explained, but the four values are.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the ids') and enumerates exactly which id families it covers, while framing itself as the dependency resolver for the other Mobile.ir tools. An agent can immediately tell it apart from siblings like mi_brand_models or mi_shop_prices because it returns ids rather than data.

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?

'Call it when a tool needs a brand, province or shop id you do not have' gives an explicit trigger condition. It also carves out an exception — brand names are accepted directly by `brand` arguments — which implicitly says when this tool is NOT needed for brands, though that carve-out is stated as a note rather than a clear exclusion.

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