messages__check_sms_sending_possibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the MCP server throttling limit (10 requests per 60 seconds) and advises caching, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. It also notes the return type (an indicator of possibility). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured with labeled sections (Args, Returns). The throttling note is extra but essential. No redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then provides essential operational details.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, ID source, and throttling. It does not fully specify the output structure (just 'indicator of possibility'), but this is adequate for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps in error handling or edge cases are acceptable for such a tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It restates the parameter 'request' and clarifies that organizationId can be sourced from organizations__get_organizations, which adds meaning. However, it does not explain the structure of the request object or what organizationId represents beyond being a UUID. Minimal but helpful compensation.

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 clear verb and resource: 'check the possibility of sending SMS for an organization.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling messages__check_sms_status (status checking) by focusing on the pre-send capability check. The returns note clarifies it provides an indicator of possibility.

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?

It provides context on when to use (when you need to verify SMS sending capability) and gives a pointer to organizations__get_organizations for the required ID. It also includes a throttling note with caching advice. However, it does not explicitly contrast with messages__check_sms_status or mention when not to use this tool.

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