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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: newest-first ordering, the fields returned, the pagination termination signal (isDone), the whatsapp:read scope requirement, and the caveat that history only begins when execution tracking was enabled.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then ordering, pagination, permission, and a caveat. No sentence is 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the description still covers auth scope, pagination termination, and the history-start limitation. Everything an agent needs to call this correctly is present.

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% (cursor alone is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It implies conversationId via 'for a conversation' and explains cursor-based paging, but references 'continueCursor' rather than the actual 'cursor' parameter and says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, leaving gaps.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus precise resource (recorded WhatsApp agent tool executions) scoped to a conversation and ordered newest first. It also differentiates from the sibling get_whatsapp_tool_execution by naming the extra detail that tool provides.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_whatsapp_tool_execution 'for the complete input query and result,' which implies when to use list versus get. It also gives the pagination loop instruction (follow continueCursor until isDone) and states the required scope, though it doesn't spell out when-not to use the tool.

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