request_another_sms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the refusal behavior when called before a first code, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects (e.g., whether a new SMS is sent immediately, whether previous codes are invalidated) or error conditions, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second provides a critical usage constraint. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it exceptionally concise and well structured.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and the most important precondition. However, it omits details about expected return values or error handling, and the parameter is not explained, leaving some gaps that an agent might need for fully confident invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the activationId parameter, and the description does not explain what activationId represents or how it relates to 'the same number'. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter's literal name, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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's function with a specific verb ('Ask for one more code') and resource ('the same number'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like wait_for_code by focusing on resending a code. It also adds purpose context ('for a password reset or a re-send') and notes the prerequisite that a first code must have arrived.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance by stating it works only after a first code has arrived and that the API refuses requests before that. This gives both a positive condition and an exclusion, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools like wait_for_code.

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