get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It thoroughly describes the response structure (status, counters, timestamps, sender, price, per-recipient status) and pagination. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits.

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, with two short paragraphs covering response contents and pagination. A reference link is included. Could be slightly more streamlined but effectively communicates necessary info.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and pagination. It references external docs for completeness. Sibling context is clear. Minor gap: no error scenario coverage.

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 already has detailed descriptions for each parameter (id, page, rowCount), so the description adds little beyond confirming pagination. Schema description coverage is effectively high, keeping baseline at 3.

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 returns delivery reports for orders created via send-sms, listing specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reports and get_balance, which serve different purposes.

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 implies use after a send-sms call but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_reports. Pagination details are mentioned but not prerequisites or error handling.

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