sms_account_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the HTTP method (POST) and authentication requirement, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, side effects, rate limits, or response format. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no annotations.

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 very short (one sentence plus endpoint) and front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. Every word has a purpose, but more information could be included without harming conciseness.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (2 params, nested object), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the response format, error handling, or additional context like rate limits. The tool's behavior is not fully specified for reliable selection.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the input schema; it mentions 'type 2' which is already documented. No value added.

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 checks SMS credit balance ('Check SMS credit balance') and provides the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'account_status' and 'sms_status' by mentioning 'type 2' and the resource, though not explicitly, so it is clear.

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') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'account_status' or 'sms_status'. No exclusion or contextual cues are provided.

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