send_sms_get

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

The description states it is a GET request to send an SMS, which is a non-idempotent, state-changing operation. This contradicts the expected safe nature of GET. No disclosure is made about side effects, success/failure behavior, or error handling. Given no annotations, the description fails to alert the agent to the mutation risk.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core action, endpoint, and a key requirement. It is front-loaded and concise. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate the URL from the description of operation.

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?

The description lacks important context: no mention of response format, success/failure indicators, or how to pass the required headers (the schema nests them as an object but GET requests pass them as HTTP headers). The size warning on the message parameter (max 160 chars) is in the schema, not the description. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke or interpret the result.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description adds only that the request uses query parameters and requires X-API-VASKEY, which is already in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond the schema is provided, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Send a single SMS'), the method ('GET via query parameters'), and the resource ('SMS'). It also provides the full API endpoint URL, making the purpose unambiguous. The tool is distinct from sibling 'send_sms' which likely uses POST.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires X-API-VASKEY') which is helpful. However, it does not explain when to prefer this GET variant over the POST 'send_sms' sibling, nor does it specify any constraints on usage (e.g., rate limits, idempotency). The guidance is minimal.

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