get_batch_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the upstream endpoint mapping and the supported message_type constraint, but says nothing about batch size limits, partial-failure behavior, or rate limits for a bulk query.

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 with the purpose, followed by endpoint mapping and the critical item format in two short sentences with no filler. The endpoint line is slightly extraneous but serves as a lead-in to the payload shape.

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 values need not be described. Combined with readOnlyHint, the description covers the essentials an agent needs (batch scope, item schema, SMS-only constraint); only batch-size and error-semantics details are absent.

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% and the single `items` parameter is an untyped object array, so the description carries the burden — and it does: it gives the exact item shape `{"id": <message id>, "message_type": "SMS"}` and notes SMS is the only supported type. It does not state whether the array size is bounded, but the core structure is fully supplied.

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 ('Query the status of multiple messages at once') and the batching scope distinguishes it from the single-message sibling get_message_status. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'multiple messages at once' implies the batch use case versus the single-message alternative, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (get_message_status / send_batch) is given. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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