get_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only retrieval (returns list, no destructive language) and describes the response contents (counters, timestamps, sender). It does not explicitly say 'read-only', but the context implies it. The lack of explicit destructive caveats is acceptable for a 'get' tool.

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 (3 sentences), front-loads the main purpose, and uses every sentence to add value (purpose, limitations, use cases, sibling reference). No extraneous information.

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 list endpoint without output schema, the description sufficiently explains the response (counters, timestamps, sender), pagination (page parameter), and typical usage. It also links to external documentation. The sibling tools are contextually relevant for disambiguation.

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 for parameter meanings. However, the description only mentions 'given date range' and does not describe the structure of the filter parameter, the start/end format, the page parameter, or the constraints (e.g., 10-day limit). The schema does provide some parameter descriptions, but the tool description fails to add value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 the tool returns an aggregate summary list of SMS orders within a date range, differentiating it from the per-recipient detail tool (get_report). It identifies the resource (SMS orders), the verb (returns list), and the scope (summary, date-filtered).

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for aggregated summaries) and when to use an alternative ('For recipient-level details, call get-report'). It provides typical use cases like dashboards and periodic analytics. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool beyond the sibling reference.

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