messages__check_sms_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: throttling (max 10 requests per 60s) and a recommendation to cache results. This goes beyond annotations and is operationally useful.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a structured Args/Returns format and includes usage hints. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence adds some value.

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 tool with no output schema, the response format is only vaguely described ('Ответ со статусами SMS') without detailing possible statuses. It also does not explain how to obtain smsIds or handle errors. The rate limit advice is useful, but other operational details are missing.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage on properties, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the request type and gives a hint for organizationId origin, but does not explain what smsIds represents or the meaning of the fields. The agent must infer from parameter names, which is insufficient.

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 it retrieves statuses of sent SMS by their IDs ('Получить статусы отправленных SMS по их идентификаторам'). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from the sibling messages__check_sms_sending_possibility, which checks sending possibility rather than status.

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?

Provides some usage guidance: where to obtain organizationId (organizations__get_organizations) and a rate limit with caching advice. However, it does not explicitly compare with the sibling tool messages__check_sms_sending_possibility to clarify when to use this tool over that one, so the guidance is partial.

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