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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses atomic compare-and-swap behavior, 409 conflict conditions, identity-equivalence checks, archive side effects, restricted-agent visibility, and Professional-plan gating for write operations. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before calling the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool purpose and a scannable action list, followed by high-value operational notes. Despite being detailed, every section corresponds to actionable invocation or error-prevention information for a complex 28-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, lack of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is complete enough for reliable selection and invocation. It covers action semantics, prerequisites, conflict handling, visibility rules, plan gating, and pagination/event options; return payload detail is the only minor omission, but it is not required to call 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic context beyond the schema by mapping parameters to actions: create needs pipeline/device/contactWid, move_stage needs previousStage from a prior get, link_chat needs contactWid, and update excludes stage moves. It does not cover every parameter detail, but it meaningfully improves action-specific parameter interpretation.

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?

Defines the tool as WhatsApp sales funnel deal management and explicitly defines what a deal is, then enumerates specific supported actions. The verb+resource are clear and the action list distinguishes deal operations from sibling areas like pipelines and deal notes.

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 action list provides explicit selection guidance, and the notes add when-to-use constraints: move_stage instead of update for stage changes, read/get before move_stage, one open deal per contact per pipeline, and plan gating for writes. It also explains restricted-agent visibility, which prevents incorrect filtering expectations.

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