Ghl A2P Registration Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Never submits anything,' which is a critical behavioral guarantee that goes beyond the schema. This is a strong disclosure for a read operation, though it doesn't cover other traits like error handling or authentication, which are not specified elsewhere.

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, front-loaded with the main action and a clear behavioral note. There is no extraneous content, and it is appropriately concise.

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 is simple with optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core function and read-only nature. However, it does not mention the distinction from sibling ghl_a2p_status, which could be important for correct tool selection, leaving a minor gap.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (company_id and location_id) with defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Read the A2P 10DLC *standard registration* settings of a sub-account,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly conveys the tool's function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling ghl_a2p_status, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Never submits anything' provides a clear behavioral context, implying this tool is for read-only operations and should be used when no changes are intended. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it's clear context without a direct when-not comparison.

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