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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation that is not read-only and not idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: the report is emailed to the team along with the workspace and the sender's address, and a reply reaches the person by email. It also imposes a privacy constraint on what may be included. It stops short of describing anything about submission limits or duplicate handling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by routing, behavior, authoring guidance and a privacy caveat, each carrying distinct information. It is dense but not padded; the only mild redundancy is that content guidance for bugs appears in both the description and the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, exclusion, delivery mechanics with recipient context, authoring guidance, and a privacy guardrail — everything an agent needs to call this correctly and safely.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by prescribing message content for a bug ('what was done, what happened, what was expected and any error text') and reinforcing the authorship rule, which meaningfully shapes how the message and title fields should be filled.

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 ('Send a bug report, feature request or feedback about WhatsMCP to the WhatsMCP team') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, wa_send_message. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ('when the person asks to report a problem, suggest a feature or leave feedback') plus a clear when-not ('not to contact a WhatsApp user — that is wa_send_message'). It even specifies how to author the input ('write it in the person's words').

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