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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond naming the API — it does not warn that repeated calls create duplicate instances (non-idempotent), nor what the call returns (instance ID, token, QR?) that the agent needs to proceed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing behavioral detail rather than a virtue in itself.

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 should explain what creation yields (instance ID, token, QR state) since the agent needs that to chain into connect/get_qr. It also omits the non-idempotency implication. For a creation tool in a multi-step workflow, this is a meaningful 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 100% with a single well-described partner_token parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no extra meaning about the token's scope or format, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 ('Create a new WhatsApp instance') and names the backing API, which distinguishes it from siblings like whatsapp_get_instances and whatsapp_delete_instance. It does not, however, clarify how it relates to whatsapp_connect or whatsapp_get_qr, which an agent would need to sequence correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus whatsapp_connect or whatsapp_get_instances, nor any stated prerequisite beyond the token in the schema. The agent must infer that instance creation precedes connection and QR retrieval.

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