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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: revealed answers are written to the account audit log under the calling user, answers are purged after a retention window and surface as answers_purged: true, and non-completed statuses are dated by send time while completed ones use submission time. The admin-only and feature-flag constraints are also disclosed.

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?

Front-loads purpose and default scope, then layers defaults, exclusions, auditing, retention and permissions with no filler sentences. It is dense and long, but each clause carries decision-relevant information for a 9-parameter tool.

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 does the heavy lifting on return semantics: it states the list carries no answers by default, what include=answers adds, and the answers_purged marker. It stops short of describing the response envelope or pagination metadata, leaving a small 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining non-obvious semantics the schema omits: the status-dependent meaning of since/until, that include=answers exports sensitive real values as the conversation's Reveal answers shows them, and that answers may be purged. Minor parameters like page/fields get no extra narrative.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a flow's sessions') and immediately defines what a session is ('the contacts a flow was sent to, newest first'), which separates it from list_whatsapp_flows and get_whatsapp_flow. The scope defaults (completed only, test sends excluded) further pin down what this tool returns.

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?

Gives concrete operating conditions: default status is completed, test sends are omitted unless include_test=true, answers require include=answers, and the tool is admin-only with a whatsapp_flows feature requirement. It even advises paging conservatively due to auditing. It does not explicitly compare against sibling 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.