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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: the two finding categories (structural vs. policy), concrete examples of each (unreachable screen, missing footer, text over limit, card-number requests, minors targeting, mismatched category), the shape of each finding (rule, severity, JSON pointer), and the publish-gate semantics of 'publishable'.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, the core action stated first and the return-value detail following. The parenthetical example lists are long but each example earns its place by clarifying what counts as a structure or policy problem.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: it describes findings (rule, severity, JSON pointer) and the publishable flag. The main gap is that the required flow_id input is never explained anywhere in the definition.

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 50% — only 'fields' is documented, and flow_id carries no schema description at all. The description partially compensates by explaining what 'report' findings look like and what the 'publishable' flag means (the two enum values of 'fields'), but it never clarifies that flow_id is the required target flow identifier.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run the compliance check on a WhatsApp Flow and read the findings.' It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_whatsapp_flow (retrieval), publish_whatsapp_flow (state change), and delete_whatsapp_flow (removal).

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 statement that 'publishable' is false while any error stands implies this is a pre-publish gate, but the description never explicitly says when to call it, that it should precede publish_whatsapp_flow, or that it is read-only validation vs. a mutation. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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