view_sms_history

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'View All received SMS,' which implies a read-only operation. It fails to address the 'page' parameter, and the word 'All' could mislead an agent into thinking a single call returns all messages when pagination might be required. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It contains no redundant words or irrelevant details, making it well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the presence of the 'page' parameter in the schema and the phrase 'All' in the description suggest pagination, which is not addressed. This leaves the agent uncertain about retrieving the full set of SMS, making the description slightly incomplete.

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% (each parameter has an example value), so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that 'number' and 'countryId' identify the SMS history to view, but it does not explain the 'page' parameter, leaving its semantics undefined. The description adds minimal value 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'View' and a clear resource 'All received SMS,' immediately conveying the tool's function. It also identifies the required parameters (number and country id), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch numbers or countries. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need SMS history for a specific number in a given country. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so the usage context is adequate without further elaboration.

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