send_verification_sms

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that it sends an SMS, fetches phone automatically, generates a link, and requires env vars. However, it does not cover error scenarios (e.g., missing phone number) or side effects beyond the SMS send.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, automation, and requirements. Minor redundancy: 'fresh verification link' could be simplified, but overall concise.

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?

The description covers main purpose and requirements but lacks mention of return value (e.g., success indication) or error handling. For a tool with no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 100%, but the description adds context by explaining that the phone parameter is optional (auto-fetched) and that a fresh link is generated (relating to TTL). This adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action ('Send a KYC verification link'), the channel ('via SMS'), and the target ('to a customer'). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_verification_link, which retrieves rather than sends.

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 required environment variables but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_verification_link). It implies usage for sending, but no exclusions or context for choosing this tool.

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