get_carrier_service_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is not testable against live hardware and that unknown ids surface the upstream 404 error verbatim. This is useful transparency, though it does not explicitly address side-effect behavior; the 'get' verb implies read-only.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by testing/error behavior and then parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-resource getter with an output schema, the description covers identification via plan_id, the error behavior for unknown ids, and optional routing via key_label. An agent has the necessary context 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?

Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema: plan_id is described as the service-plan UUID from list_carrier_service_plans, and key_label is explained as an optional API-key label for routing. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Carrier / ISP Fabric service plan by ID.' The 'by ID' qualifier distinguishes it from list_carrier_service_plans and other getter siblings without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

Plan_id is sourced from list_carrier_service_plans, which implies a list-then-get workflow. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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