verify_whatsapp_codeComplete WhatsApp verification by submitting the 6-digit code the agent received on WhatsApp (after send_whatsapp_verification). On success the account can publish listings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The 6-digit code sent to the WhatsApp number |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that successful verification enables publishing listings, which is helpful. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't contradict. However, it doesn't disclose details like error handling, retries, or rate limits, which are not critical but could be useful.
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 two short sentences that front-load the purpose and outcome. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential context: the flow (after send_whatsapp_verification) and the result (account can publish listings). This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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. The description repeats the schema's description ('6-digit code sent to the WhatsApp number') without adding significant new meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation.
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's purpose: completing WhatsApp verification by submitting the 6-digit code, explicitly linking it to the prerequisite action (send_whatsapp_verification) and the outcome (account can publish listings). This distinguishes it well from sibling 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 specifies that this tool is used after send_whatsapp_verification, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sequential relationship is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between 'search' and 'search_listings', and between 'fetch' and 'get_listing'. However, descriptions effectively differentiate them.
Naming follows multiple patterns: verb_noun (create_listing), noun (closing_costs), get_*, search_*, my_*. While each pattern is internally consistent, the mix reduces overall consistency.
39 tools is relatively high, but they cover a broad set of real estate functionalities. The count feels slightly heavy but is justified by the domain scope.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of listings (CRUD, promotion, sharing), account management, search with multiple filters, market data, guides, and lead management. No obvious gaps for the platform's purpose.