smm_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: only that the call is free (stated twice). It omits auth requirements, whether the order must belong to the caller, and any behavior on unknown orderId.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded, but the duplicated '(free) (free)' is wasted, sloppy text that suggests low authoring quality rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 lookup with no output schema this need not be long, but with zero schema descriptions and no annotations the description should at least identify the domain (SMM) and where orderId originates. It does neither.

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 0% with one required parameter (orderId, string). The description implies the parameter identifies an order but adds no format, source, or validity information beyond what the self-explanatory name already conveys.

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 clear verb+resource ('Check the status of an order'), so the basic function is inferable. However, it never says what kind of order (SMM vs SMS, given the sms_status sibling) or what 'status' returns, leaving real ambiguity among the many *_status siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that orderId comes from smm_order), and no referral to alternatives like sms_status or smm_cancel. The only cue is the parenthetical '(free)'.

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