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

The description conveys the core behavior: it returns delivery metrics, success rates, and volume statistics for SMS and WhatsApp, and the verb 'Get' implies read-only. However, with no annotations, it omits context about aggregation behavior, time-window effects, and output shape, so the disclosure is partial.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 simple one-optional-parameter read tool, the description and schema cover the basics. However, the lack of an output schema and any guidance on how this tool relates to sibling monitoring tools leaves some ambiguity about the response structure and suitable selection.

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%: the 'days' parameter is fully described with a range and default. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the schema carries the semantic load and the baseline score applies.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource (SMS & WhatsApp delivery metrics, success rates, and volume statistics). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_message_status or list_messages by focusing on aggregate analytics, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies use for aggregate channel analytics, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_message_status, list_messages, or ops_monitoring. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, leaving the selection logic to inference.

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