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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: submission triggers an asynchronous Meta review of unspecified latency, the result is unusable until APPROVED, and creating requires a Business (Cloud API) number. It does not, however, detail failure modes, limitations, or what the response contains.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by review behavior, gating, categories, and variable rules. Sentences are dense but every clause carries information. Slightly crowded, but no filler.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description adequately covers the async review model, approval gating, category options, and variable/example conventions for a mutation tool with a rich schema. It could mention account_id sourcing or common rejection causes, but the essentials are present.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces variable numbering and the body_examples pairing, but adds little that the schema does not already state. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ("Submit a new WhatsApp Business message template") with clear scope constraints (on Business Cloud API numbers, subject to Meta review). This cleanly distinguishes it from wa_delete_template and wa_list_templates, which handle the lifecycle stages before and after creation.

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?

It names two siblings with conditions: the template can be sent via wa_send_message's template option only after wa_list_templates shows it APPROVED, and it applies only to Business numbers. This is clear routing, though it doesn't state explicit exclusions or when to prefer an alternative to creating (e.g., editing an existing template).

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