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

Annotations already provide safety hints (non-destructive, idempotent). The description adds valuable context: it sends an SMS, includes specific content, and has a plan requirement. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral details beyond the structured fields.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary action and include key details (content, prerequisite). Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when it runs, what it includes, and requirements. No gaps are evident for an agent to misuse the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it echoes the parameter purposes (jobId for the job, delayMinutes for waiting). No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Send') and resource ('automated review request SMS'), explicitly states the context ('after job completion'), and differentiates from sibling tools like comms.send_sms by mentioning the review-specific content (Google Review link, AI-suggested text) and plan requirement.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating it is for after job completion and requires a Growth+ plan with SMS automations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to alternative tools (e.g., comms.send_sms or reviews.request).

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