about_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'About state' entails (e.g., profile details, status). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming the tool or adding minimal context, but it's still highly concise.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'About state' means, what data is returned, or any behavioral traits like error cases. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'phone' parameter documented as a number with an example. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'WA number' refers to (e.g., WhatsApp number) or provide context for the phone parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'return the *About* state of the WA number on the query.' It specifies the verb ('return'), resource ('About state'), and target ('WA number'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'is_a_business' or 'validate_single_whatsapp_number', which also involve WA numbers but serve different purposes.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for 'About state' retrieval, or differentiate from sibling tools that validate or check business status. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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