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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the aggregate-per-status return shape and the concrete terminal condition for polling. It doesn't mention rate limits or eventual-consistency delays, which would matter for a poll-style tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and what identifies it, with no filler. The first sentence is a fragment that reads awkwardly, and the terminal-condition sentence is terse to the point of needing a second read.

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 an output schema present, return values need no prose explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies purpose, parameter provenance, and the stopping criterion, leaving only minor gaps like polling cadence and status enumeration completeness.

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 batch_id has no type or format documentation in the schema. The description compensates by explaining what a batchId identifies and which two tools produce one, which is the key semantic an agent needs. It still doesn't state the expected string format.

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 the resource precisely: all texts belonging to one send, identified by batchId, plus a per-status count breakdown. It also names the sibling tools that produce a batchId (send_sms, send_sms_batch), which helps separate it from get_message and get_stats. The verb is only implied ('check'), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'from send_sms or send_sms_batch' tells the agent this is a follow-up call after sending, and 'Done when nothing is left at scheduled, queued or dispatched' gives an explicit polling termination condition. What's missing is any statement of when to prefer this over siblings like get_stats or get_message.

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