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

Annotations already declare this is read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: how linked_idle vs linked_live vs linked_locked vs linked_session_lost differ, what each means for user action, and the crucial warning that `connected: false` is normal for a linked session. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then branches into detailed verdict explanations. It is long and dense, but the length is largely justified by the complexity of the link states and the warning against misreading `connected`. Some of the run-on verdict text could be more scannable, but nothing is clearly redundant.

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, the description need not explain return values—yet it goes further and maps each link_state to its operational meaning and required user action. It also covers the sync job signals from whatsapp_sync (#1453). For a diagnostic tool with many possible states, this is complete.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and the schema description already explains that it accepts a label or id from whatsapp_list_accounts and defaults when omitted. The tool description does not add further parameter guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies for full schema coverage.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a WhatsApp health check ('wacli doctor') and enumerates the exact signals it reports: linked account, last sync, store lock, counts, link_state verdicts, and sync job fields. This is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like whatsapp_list_accounts, whatsapp_connect, or whatsapp_sync.

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?

It gives strong interpretive guidance—read link_state/requires_user_action rather than connected, and do not tell users to re-link a healthy link—and explains what action each verdict implies. It does not explicitly state the triggering situation (e.g., 'use this when sends fail or the link appears broken'), so there is a modest gap.

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