sms_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the useful behavioral trait that the call is free and that it lists valid codes, but says nothing about result size, paging, or return shape, leaving real gaps for a mutation-adjacent ordering workflow.

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 single sentence is efficient, but the trailing '(free) (free)' is a duplicated artifact that wastes space and signals sloppy authoring. Front-loading is fine.

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 read-only lookup with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the core purpose is conveyed. However, with zero annotations the description could have covered cost/free behavior and the discovery-then-order workflow more fully.

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%, so the schema already documents both q (name filter) and limit (default 200). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond this, so the baseline of 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 and resource: listing valid service and country codes for SMS verification. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like sms_pricing or sms_rental_quote.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no naming of alternatives. The '(free)' tag faintly implies this is the no-cost lookup step before paid siblings, but nothing routes the agent deliberately.

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