Request another SMS

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that an API key is required and that the action is rate-limited per activation. However, it does not mention side effects like cost, response behavior, or failure cases, which would enrich transparency for a mutating action.

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 that deliver the core action, the key limitation, and the authentication requirement with no waste. Key information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it states the action, scope, limitation, and auth requirement. It could be more complete by noting what the response signifies or that sending may incur a charge, but nothing essential is missing for basic invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains that id is an activation id from request_number or list_activations. The description adds only the 'same number' context, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 and resource: ask the provider to send another SMS to the same number. This clearly separates it from request_number, which obtains an initial number, and the 'same number' qualifier removes ambiguity about the target.

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: use when a second SMS to the same number is needed, and warns that it is limited per activation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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