Get activation status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does a solid job: it discloses the auth requirement ('Requires an API key'), the non-mutating/non-spending nature ('Does not spend'), and the conditional presence of the SMS code ('if received'). This is genuine value beyond the schema.

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 with zero waste; the core purpose is front-loaded and the two behavioral notes ('Requires an API key', 'Does not spend') are each earned additions.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and cost behavior. The only minor gap is the absence of return-format details, but that is a small omission given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the schema already documents id as 'Activation id (from request_number or list_activations)'. The description adds only marginal context (the 'one activation' phrasing hints at the single id), so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and SMS code for one activation'), and the 'for one activation' phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling list_activations, which returns many. An agent can tell this apart from its siblings without opening the schema.

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 usage context ('Does not spend' signals it is safe to poll without cost, and 'Requires an API key' sets an auth precondition), but it never names alternatives or states explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use conditions. Sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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