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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, it discloses status semantics, the fact that only APPROVED templates can open new conversations, account scoping, and the exact fields returned per template. These details add substantial behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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?

The description is dense but front-loads the read-only nature and status behavior. It packs useful downstream send_wp_template guidance, though the single long paragraph and embedded JSON example make it slightly harder to scan than necessary.

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 explains the returned template fields and the follow-up send path, which is complete enough for an agent. It falls short only in not explaining the category and language filter parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for status and wp_account_id/wp_account_uuid, but category and language are never explained as filters even though they are part of the input schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: list APPROVED WhatsApp templates. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by explaining the status scope and explicitly directing the agent to send_wp_template only after selecting a template.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: default APPROVED, alternative statuses to inspect pending/rejected/paused templates, and only APPROVED templates can be sent. It also explains the downstream action of picking a template and passing its id or uuid to send_wp_template with variables.

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