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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: sends nothing, only creates the dialog row, bot is OFF with the reason, phone history is pulled later so the dialog is empty at first, and it requires editor role with WhatsApp connected. These are prerequisites and side-effect disclosures the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Lead sentence gives purpose, second kills the main misconception (it sends nothing), then behavior, prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place, though the middle sentences are clause-dense and would read faster broken up.

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 supplies the return shape (dialog id, created flag) plus permission and connection prerequisites. There is nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely that 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%, so the schema already documents phone formatting, project_id lookup and the optional name. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that baseline, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 (open/find the dialog for a phone number in WhatsApp) and immediately distinguishes its role from the sibling send_operator_message, which writes messages. An agent can tell it apart from dosai_list_conversations or dosai_search_conversation without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the triggering scenario (send_operator_message needs to write to someone with no dialog yet) and what happens when it is not needed (existing dialog returned untouched with created=false). It also says what to do afterwards (toggle-ai in the cabinet), routing the agent through the whole workflow.

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