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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: phone eligibility (worker/roster of org), burst limits, SMS quota, STOP opt-outs, ownership proof via task list, and the 'full tier' cost implication.

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 definition is a single dense sentence that front-loads the action and then packs in constraints. It is efficient with no filler, though the run-on structure could be slightly clearer if split into two sentences.

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 sends an SMS (complex, open-world, non-idempotent) and has no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, guardrails, quotas, and token sources well. It lacks explicit mention of success/error behavior or return confirmation, but for an action tool this is largely sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for token (report token from tascan_mint_completion_report / tascan_generate_report) and phone (must belong to worker or roster entry). It does not mention the optional 'note' parameter, but the schema already documents it fully.

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 ('Text') and resource ('an existing report's link') and gives the exact endpoint (POST /reports/:token/text). It distinguishes itself from generic SMS siblings by calling out the 'guarded SMS lane' and report-specific ownership check.

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?

Provides clear context for when the tool applies (existing report, phone must belong to worker/roster, full tier) and names the token-generating siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with tascan_send_sms or tascan_schedule_sms or state when not to use it.

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