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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld); the description adds what they cannot: that live calls go out to WhatsApp and need a connected number, that the default view is settings-only, that an enabled group carries a conversation_id usable with get_messages and send_operator_message, and hard limits (5 enabled groups, 100 members). That is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot get elsewhere.

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-loaded with the purpose, then live semantics, then return fields, then limits – a sensible order. It is dense and the parenthetical explanations of mode=mention/watch are wordy, but each clause carries information the agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the returned shape: enabled, mode, task, task assigner, daily check cap, and conversation_id for enabled groups. Combined with the live/non-live distinction and the limits, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the consequence of live (external fetch, connection requirement) versus the settings-only fallback. However it says 'without it only groups that already have settings are returned', which reads as if non-live is the default, while the schema documents live defaulting to true – a mild ambiguity the agent must resolve.

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: lists the WhatsApp groups the project's number belongs to, plus the bot settings of each. The scope is unmistakable, but the description never names the closely related sibling dosai_set_wa_group, so the read-vs-configure boundary has to be inferred from the verb alone.

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 conditional guidance: default returns only groups that already have settings, live=true fetches the current list from WhatsApp and requires the number to be connected. That is a clear when-to-use-which distinction for the main parameter. It stops short of naming the natural follow-up tool (dosai_set_wa_group) or excluding any other sibling.

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