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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only/destructive profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond those hints by disclosing that it returns WABA/phone metadata and the latest agentic connect session state, giving the agent a clearer picture of what to expect.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Check whether...') and concise but informative. Every phrase adds substantive meaning without redundant 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only, with an output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, the inclusion of metadata, and the session-state aspect. The output schema can handle return-value details, so the description is complete enough.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and no parameter info is missing.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Check' with clear resource: WhatsApp Business connection status for this company. It also specifies included details (WABA/phone metadata, latest agentic connect session state), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling creation tool create_whatsapp_connect_link.

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?

Usage is implied by the getter nature and scope ('for this company'), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this over alternatives like create_whatsapp_connect_link or other get_* status tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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