get_sms_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the asynchronous nature of delivery confirmation and enumerates all six status values with their meanings. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether polling is expected, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by labeled USAGE, STATUS VALUES, and Args sections. The status enumeration is bulky but every entry earns its place by defining an ambiguous term the agent will encounter.

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?

An output schema exists so return-shape detail isn't required, and the description still explains the status vocabulary an agent needs to interpret it. Usage sequencing and the single parameter's format are covered, leaving nothing essential missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it names the parameter (message_sid), states its origin (returned by send_sms), and gives a format example ('SMxxxxxxxx...'). That materially exceeds the bare string 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Check the delivery status of a sent SMS.' This clearly distinguishes it from its only sibling send_sms, which sends rather than queries.

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 says to call it after send_sms() to verify delivery and warns that confirmation may take a few seconds, giving the agent a sequencing condition. No when-not guidance, but the tool's scope is narrow enough that this is minor.

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