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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (only numbers registered to this partner) and notes status is included in the result, but says nothing about result volume, truncation, or how the limit/pagination behaves, which matters for a list tool.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The trailing "with status" is slightly ambiguous about what status values are returned, but no wording is wasted.

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?

This is a low-complexity read tool with no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values in depth. However, with no output schema and an undocumented limit parameter, an agent still lacks guidance on result size and paging, which is a meaningful gap for a listing operation.

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?

The single parameter (limit, default 50, max 200) has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The description therefore adds no meaning about what limit controls or what happens when more numbers exist than the limit, leaving the one parameter undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List the WhatsApp Business Accounts (client numbers)") and clarifies the scope as those "registered to this partner." It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling bridge_number_status, which the phrase "with status" partially overlaps with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bridge_number_status or bridge_usage. The listing intent is only implied by the verb "List"; no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing guidance are given.

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