androidapi_get_rates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns IDs for later use, but doesn't elaborate on data freshness or response structure. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second provides actionable usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Tool has no params and no output schema. Description explains what it returns and how to use the data. For a read-only tool with openWorldHint, this is sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of rate structure or filtering.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by noting the returned IDs are used for SMS sending, which compensates for lack of output schema. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 clearly states 'Get available SMS gateways and partner device rates', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on rates and gateway retrieval.

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 explicitly says to use returned IDs as 'gateway' when sending SMS in 'credits' mode, providing clear context. No alternatives or when-not scenarios are needed for this simple read tool.

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