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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it reveals that disabled agents are included, that duplicate names may exist, and that freshly consented whatsapp_agents:read is required. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences, all of which add value: the core purpose, the disambiguation guidance, and the permission requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only/non-destructive profile, the description is largely sufficient. It covers authentication, scope, and duplicate-name handling, though it leaves the semantics of limit and integrationId to be inferred from their parameter names.

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 only 33%; only cursor is documented in the schema. The description does not explain limit or integrationId, even though low coverage means the description should compensate. The mention of 'account phone/name and agentId' refers to output attributes, not input parameters.

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 and resource ('List WhatsApp agents') and adds scope ('across connected accounts') plus an important inclusion criterion ('including disabled agents'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_whatsapp_agent and update_whatsapp_agent.

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 useful context around target disambiguation and the required consent scope, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_whatsapp_agent or list_whatsapp_accounts. Usage conditions are implied rather than spelled out.

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