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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates the diagnostic fields returned and explicitly discloses that the pairing QR is never returned, which prevents a common wrong expectation. No auth or rate-limit context, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second gives the use case and a negative constraint. No filler, every clause carries information.

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?

For a low-complexity read-only tool with one fully documented parameter, the description covers the return content, the triggering scenario, and a notable exclusion, compensating for the absence of an output schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% – the single project_id parameter is fully documented as a UUID returned by dosai_list_projects. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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 (retrieve WhatsApp connection status) and enumerates exactly what is reported: connected-or-not, which number, last-seen time, and last connection error. This is clearly distinct from the sibling dosai_get_telegram_status and from any QR/pairing tool, so an agent can route without opening the 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 a concrete use case – "why is the bot silent" – which is a strong diagnostic cue for when to call it. It does not name an alternative (e.g. dosai_get_telegram_status for the Telegram side) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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