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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add constraints — and it does: a hard 92-day window, counts-only with no message text, and that results are subject to the org's AI access and privacy settings, meaning rows can legitimately be missing or empty. Those are real behavioural facts an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource, then the metrics, then the counting and permission caveats. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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 shape need not be documented, and the privacy/no-text caveats are well covered. However, for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the unexplained sla_minutes and pagination parameters leave meaningful gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies from/to as the date range and supplies the 92-day span limit, but it says nothing about limit/cursor pagination or, critically, what sla_minutes controls (presumably the response-time threshold used to classify open requests as overdue). Three of five parameters remain opaque in both schema and 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?

States a clear resource and scope: per-group activity within the organization's own WhatsApp groups, covering messages, outside requests, responses/response times and open requests, for a bounded date range. The 'per-group' qualifier implicitly separates it from get_staff_activity and get_message_stats, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the division of labour.

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?

Usage context is implied through the date-range framing and the 92-day cap, which tells the agent this is the bounded-window query. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_message_stats, get_staff_activity or get_business_overview, and no statement of prerequisites or what to do when the range exceeds 92 days.

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