get_sms_stats_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the tool returns a summary, but it does not disclose what metrics are included, the default window when from/to are omitted, or the response shape.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Optional from/to (RFC 3339)' clause is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it does not add meaningful bloat.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the agent will get and how to call it correctly. It fails to describe the default reporting window behavior, the contents of the summary, or how this differs from the sibling stats endpoints.

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 from/to already documented as inclusive/exclusive RFC 3339 values. The description only repeats 'Optional from/to (RFC 3339)' and adds no new parameter semantics beyond the 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?

The description identifies a concrete resource ('Account SMS usage summary') and scopes it to a 'reporting window', which helps distinguish it from sibling stats tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb and relies on the tool name for the 'get' action.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_sms_stats_live or get_sms_stats_timeseries. The reporting-window phrasing only implies a use case; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.

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