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

The description explicitly states that it does NOT send any message—only constructs a link for the user to open. This prevents misinterpretation as a messaging tool. Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already indicate a safe operation, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficient and to the point.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, annotations present), the description sufficiently covers purpose, behavior, and parameter usage. An agent can correctly determine when and how to invoke the tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions mensaje_interes as optional for personalizing the message, adding minimal value beyond the schema. proyecto_slug is not highlighted in the description, so no additional insight.

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 clearly states it generates a pre-built WhatsApp link to the EcoPlaza commercial team for coordinating visits or resolving doubts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., buscar_locales_disponibles, consultar_precios_o_financiamiento) by focusing on human contact via WhatsApp.

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 explicitly says when to use it: to contact the commercial team for visits or doubts. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools.

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