Check SMS delivery

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real interpretive value beyond them: pending/dispatched/sent are explicitly not delivered, and pagination is required to see all recipients. It does not disclose ownership/permission enforcement details or the result shape, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the non-action disclaimer last. Every clause adds distinct information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what comes back; it says 'recipient statuses' and warns which statuses do not imply delivery, which is the key interpretation risk. It omits result shape (per-recipient records vs aggregate) and the default page size, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does supply the crucial meaning of sms_batch_id (an owned id obtained from send_sms) and flags that pagination exists, but it never explains page/limit semantics, defaults, or the 1-50 limit cap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read recipient statuses for an owned sms_batch_id'. It ties the input back to its producer ('returned by send_sms'), which separates it from send_sms, and the batch-scoped read is clearly distinct from list_devices/list_messages/get_stats.

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 gives a clear trigger (check statuses after a send) and an operational instruction ('Paginate to see all recipients'). It stops short of explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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