wa_list_business_accounts

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

The phrase 'accessible to the user' provides useful authorization context, and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, without annotations, the description does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether any other behaviors exist, leaving some gaps.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention what the response structure looks like or how the data might be used with related WhatsApp tools, so it is not fully complete.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters for the description to explain.

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 clearly identifies the action 'List' and the resource 'WhatsApp Business Accounts (WABAs)', with the scope 'accessible to the user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wa_list_phone_numbers, which list a different resource.

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?

The purpose is clear but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also doesn't mention how the returned WABA IDs might be used with other WhatsApp tools, leaving the usage context implied rather than stated.

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