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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by specifying the exact scope of returned data and explicitly excluding sensitive fields like QR pairing codes, credentials, API keys, and proxy data. This helps agents understand the bounded nature of the operation.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose, names inclusions, and lists exclusions. Every clause earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one documented parameter, a rich annotation set, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool returns, what it deliberately omits, and the project scope, leaving no critical gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter projectId is already described in the schema as 'Wapiworld project id to summarize'. The description adds only the tenant-scoped qualifier, which is useful but not a substantial improvement over the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Render') and clearly identifies the resource ('a bounded operational overview for one tenant-scoped Wapiworld project'). It also states what is included ('WhatsApp instance health and safe phone metadata') and what is excluded, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_instance, list_projects, and get_instance_status.

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 phrase 'bounded operational overview' and the explicit exclusions provide useful context for when this tool is appropriate, particularly for safe, non-sensitive project summaries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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