Get Transactional SMS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral value is revealing that the response includes delivery status; it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or what happens with an unknown id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word states scope or content, and nothing needs to be trimmed or reordered.

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 one-parameter read-only getter whose annotations fully cover safety and idempotency, the description is nearly sufficient, especially since the mention of delivery status hints at the return content despite there being no output schema. Only the absence of sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 sole 'id' parameter is fully documented as a UUID with a pattern, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format or lookup guidance beyond it, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('transactional sms message') scoped to a single record, and it names the returned payload ('delivery status'), which distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list-sms-messages and campaign tools like get-sms-campaign. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so an agent must infer the single-vs-list distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular 'one ... message' plus a required id makes it clear this is a fetch-by-id tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to list-sms-messages or get-sms-campaign for the agent to choose between siblings.

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