joltsms_get_latest_otp

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden and delivers the non-obvious behaviors: the default 10-minute lookback window and the fallback that returns the raw message body when no code is parsed. It does not cover error paths (e.g. number not provisioned), whether reading marks messages as read, or the exact return shape, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the fallback behavior, then the routing hint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 a simple two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, default window, no-result fallback, and the sibling alternative. It leaves the exact response shape and edge-case failures undefined, which is a minor but real gap for a code-extraction 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 100%, so both parameters (since, number_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of the 10-minute default duplicates what the 'since' schema entry already states, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the most recent parsed OTP code from a phone number") plus the scoping nuance that it looks at the last 10 minutes. This distinguishes it from the message-listing siblings and from joltsms_wait_for_sms without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ("Use joltsms_wait_for_sms if you need to wait for an OTP that hasn't arrived yet") along with the condition that selects it. It also frames itself as a convenience path for already-arrived codes, so the when/when-not split is clear.

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