get_sms_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It only states 'check status', implying a read operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, error conditions, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have side effects or require permissions.

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?

A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. The purpose is stated immediately without filler.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description fails to describe what the status check returns (e.g., delivery status, error codes, possible status values). This is a critical omission for an agent to interpret the response correctly, making the definition incomplete.

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%, with the only parameter 'message_id' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter, so it does not go beyond the schema. Per rubric, baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters.

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 checks the status of a sent SMS, using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('status of sent SMS'). This distinguishes it from siblings like send_sms (sending) and get_call_status (call status).

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 implies usage after sending an SMS, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to sibling tools like get_call_status. It relies on implicit context rather than stating conditions for use.

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