SIM number market summary

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: prices are in Toman and many ads are price-less (negotiable) and counted only in `ads`. It doesn't cover freshness guarantees, caching, or result limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, output shape front-loaded, followed by use cases and then the sibling routing hint. No filler and no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

With five optional params and no output schema, the description reasonably carries the return-value burden by specifying ad counts plus three cheapest prices per operator, and it flags the price-less-ad caveat that affects how those cheapest slots are populated. Minor gaps remain: whether counts span all operators in one response and how many operators are returned.

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 coverage is 100% with three enums, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description's only parameter-relevant contribution is that prices are Toman, which the schema itself states for min_price, so this is baseline 3 with no meaningful added semantics.

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 gives a specific verb (summarise), a specific resource (numbered-SIM market on Mobile.ir), and the exact output shape: per-operator ad counts and the three cheapest priced numbers. It also explicitly contrasts itself with mi_sim_search for drill-down, so an agent can choose between them without opening a schema.

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?

Concrete trigger phrases ('how many Irancell numbers are for sale', 'cheapest Rightel number') make the when-to-use case unambiguous, and the alternative path is named: drill into one operator with mi_sim_search. It doesn't state explicit exclusions, but the sibling pointer effectively covers the main branch point.

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