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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns pending with a QR code or pairing code that refreshes when changed, and it explicitly instructs polling behavior. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, the return states, the polling cadence, and the parameter behavior in three sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: what statuses to expect, how to poll, and what to do when connected. It doesn't describe the exact structure of the QR code or pairing code fields, but that is minor given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety.

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% for the single parameter, and the description adds meaning by explaining that intent_id is the value returned by whatsapp_connect/telegram_connect and that omitting it checks the latest attempt. This clarifies the parameter's provenance and default behavior beyond the schema's simple description.

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 the tool checks the status of an in-conversation WhatsApp/Telegram connection initiated by whatsapp_connect or telegram_connect. It names the specific resource (connection status) and the possible return states, distinguishing it from the connect tools and other account tools.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: poll every 10-20 seconds until status is connected, then retry the user's original request. It also explains how to handle the optional intent_id parameter, saying to omit it to check the most recent attempt. This is clear operational guidance.

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