post--v3-sms-price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Calculate SMS Price' does not say whether this is a read-only quote operation, whether it sends anything, what the response contains, or whether there are caveats such as pricing depending on country, character count, or message parts. The input schema hints at such details, but the description itself adds almost no behavioral context.

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 extremely brief and has no wasted words; it is front-loaded and immediately communicates the headline purpose. However, the brevity is close to under-specification, so it is concise but not as carefully structured as a minimally complete description could be.

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?

There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description is only three words. The schema compensates for parameter meaning, but the endpoint's observable behavior — the pricing result, what the request implies, and how it differs from other SMS endpoints — is left to guessing. This is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it without further inference.

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%, and the input schema already documents every field, including the nested messages object and the rich meaning of body, to, from, country, and schedule. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate SMS Price.' This is enough to tell the agent that the tool performs pricing rather than sending, searching, or retrieving SMS statistics, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools. However, it is quite terse and does not clarify the scope beyond 'price,' so it just misses a perfect score.

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 guidance about when to use this tool or how it differs from the siblings. It does not say 'use this instead of sending to estimate cost' or any conditions under which this endpoint should be preferred. The usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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