get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not explain return format, error behavior, permissions, or side effects. The word 'Get' implies read-only, but no explicit safety or response details are given.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 and annotations, the description should provide more detail about return values and usage context. It fails to mention when to preference this over similar siblings (e.g., get_active_activations) and does not clarify what 'status' entails, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable invocation.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter, with description 'Activation ID' that minimally defines the parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The parameter description is terse but present.

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 'Get activation status and SMS code' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (activation status and SMS code). It distinguishes from siblings like get_balance or get_operators, though it does not explicitly mention it operates on a single activationId, leaving some ambiguity with get_active_activations or get_activation_history.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_active_activations or get_activation_history. The description simply states what it does without any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameter.

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