get_dedicated_number

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait: messages accumulate for the life of the number, making polling necessary. It also clarifies that parsed codes are included. It does not mention error handling, auth, or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 long, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it reads, the second explains the polling behavior. No wasted words.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It indicates the return content (status and SMS messages, including parsed codes) and provides usage context. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't mention any error cases or caveats, but those are not critical for this low-complexity tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents number_id as 'ded_xxx from purchase_dedicated_number or list_orders.' The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema fully covers the parameter meaning. No deduction needed.

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 ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('a dedicated number's status and received SMS messages'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_rental or get_esim_status by focusing on dedicated numbers and SMS retrieval.

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 context on when to use this tool: 'poll this tool after directing an SMS at it.' It also explains that messages keep arriving for the life of the number, implying a polling pattern. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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