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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: what information is surfaced (number, name, last error) and the hard boundary that connection changes cannot be made here, preventing a wrong invocation.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the scope limitation is front-loaded in the second sentence. It is somewhat elliptical (a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, and 'el último error' lacks a verb), which slightly hurts parsing but not economy.

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-only, single-parameter status check with no output schema, the description covers what is reported and what cannot be done here, which is the essential information. A brief note on what an unlinked state looks like in the response would make it complete, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including the guidance to use the brand the user named and to ask when ambiguous. The description adds nothing about brand_id, so the schema does all the work — the baseline 3 applies.

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 precisely what the tool reports: whether the brand's WhatsApp is linked (with number and name visible) and the last error. That distinguishes it from siblings like whatsapp_list or whatsapp_send_message, though the verb is implicit and the sentence is a fragment rather than an explicit 'check status' statement.

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?

Provides a clear exclusion — linking via QR or unlinking happens in PilotControl, not here — which usefully routes the agent away from expecting a fix. However, there is no positive trigger such as 'use this when the user asks whether WhatsApp is connected', so the when-to-use side is only implied.

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