get_sms_thread

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It specifies the returned fields and auto-resolution for account_id. It implies read-only behavior by saying 'Get', which is adequate. Could mention idempotency or side effects, but not needed 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 two sentences plus a brief Args list. It is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail returns. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and sibling distinction. Complete for a straightforward get tool.

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%, but the description explains both parameters: thread_id comes from `list_sms_threads` and account_id auto-resolves if omitted. This adds necessary context beyond the minimal schema.

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 retrieves a lead-management record for an SMS thread (notes, value, tags, lead_qualification, state). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool `get_text_message` by directing users to that tool for message transcripts.

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 explains exactly when to use this tool (to get lead-management record) and when not to (for message transcripts, use `get_text_message`). This provides clear context and an alternative.

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