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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: the link is issued by Meta and is temporary, requiring re-fetch when needed; the call fails with a hint if the JSON has not been uploaded; publishing makes the flow uneditable. This is exactly the context an agent needs around a non-destructive but stateful preview.

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: purpose, prerequisite, link lifetime, and next step. The main outcome (previewUrl) is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter preview tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, return value, lifetime behavior, and the downstream publishing consequence. Nothing an agent needs to sequence this 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%, and both parameters already document their sources (list_whatsapp_flows, list_accounts, with the note that other networks are rejected). The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond that, so the baseline 3 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: get a `previewUrl` that renders the WhatsApp Flow as a customer would see it. This is clearly distinct from siblings like list_whatsapp_flows, upload_whatsapp_flow_json, and publish_whatsapp_flow.

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 frames the use case (check with the user before publishing), names the prerequisite tool (upload_whatsapp_flow_json) and the failure mode when it is missing, and names the follow-on tool (publish_whatsapp_flow) once approved. When-to-use and alternatives are both covered.

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