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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the consequences: whoever opens the link can attach THEIR number, a new link invalidates the old one, and it expires after 14 days. It also flags the two-step confirmation and the admin/owner authorization requirement — exactly the risk context an agent needs for a destructiveHint=true 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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the security warning, then the constraints, with no wasted clauses. The telegraphic fragments ('Lives 14 days. Two steps. Admin or owner.') are efficient but slightly cryptic in isolation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does convey what is returned (a page with the QR) plus expiry, invalidation, permissions and the confirmation requirement. Complete enough to call safely; a little more on what the returned link looks like or how the flow completes would make it a 5.

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 100% and confirm_token is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it. 'Two steps' loosely signals the confirmation flow but adds no detail about project_id or token handling beyond the schema. 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?

Concrete verb+resource: it produces a page/link with the WhatsApp QR to be scanned from the business phone. An agent can tell what it gets back. It does not name the closest sibling (dosai_get_whatsapp_pairing_code) or state the QR-vs-code distinction explicitly, so it falls 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?

Implies the usage context (open on a computer or another phone and scan), states the permission gate (admin or owner), and gives a strong sharing rule (give it only to the owner). It never explicitly contrasts with dosai_get_whatsapp_pairing_code or dosai_get_whatsapp_status, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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