Check call or text status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the full set of status values and explains that each attempt includes times, confirmation result, and recording information. It also gives polling behavior guidance, which is useful operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by status values, return details, and polling guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information with no wasted wording.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: when to use it, the possible statuses, what attempt details are returned, and polling cadence. No significant informational gap remains.

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%, and the single request_id parameter is already documented as the ID returned when the call or text was created. The description reinforces that the ID refers to an earlier-created call or text but does not add format or validation details 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check a call or text created earlier.' It clearly identifies the tool as a status-checking operation and enumerates the possible statuses, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as call_text.

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?

It establishes the usage context as checking something created earlier and adds polling guidance: 'Wait a few seconds between checks.' It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, but the intended use is clear.

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