textverified_list_sms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'List received SMS' does at least signal a read-only operation. Beyond that it gives nothing about pagination, ordering, date bounds, or rate limits, which matters for a listing endpoint. Minimum viable rather than 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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 annotations, 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and only a one-line description, the definition leaves key operational details (filter semantics, pagination, result scope) unspecified. The output schema covers return shape, but the invocation-side guidance is thin.

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% and the description only loosely maps 'reservation or number' onto reservation_id/reservation_type/to, leaving the meaning of 'to' and the entirely undocumented extra_query parameter unexplained. It partially compensates but falls well short of covering 4 undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List received SMS') with the scope of optional filtering, which distinguishes it from textverified_list_calls and textverified_send_sms. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by reservation or number' implies the filtering use case, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_calls or how the filters interact. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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