bach-whatsapp_number_validators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the verification goal but omits critical operational details: what the tool returns (boolean, object, string?), error handling for invalid numbers, rate limits, or whether this triggers external API calls. The phrase 'obtain the status' is vague about the actual response format.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose immediately; the second specifies input requirements. Every word earns its place without filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 simple single-parameter input and 100% schema coverage, the input side is adequately documented. However, the absence of an output schema combined with no description of return values or error states leaves a significant gap. The description meets minimum viability but fails to fully compensate for missing structured data about outputs.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage with an example value, the description adds essential semantic context by explicitly stating the number must include the 'corresponding country code.' This prevents errors from users providing local numbers without prefixes, adding meaningful value beyond the schema's basic example.

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 verifies WhatsApp registration and determines Business account status using specific verbs ('Verify', 'determine'). However, it does not distinguish when to use this GET endpoint versus the sibling POST endpoint (check_if_number_is_business_via_post_request), which appears to offer identical functionality.

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 input requirements ('provide the number along with the corresponding country code') but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like bulk_validation (for multiple numbers) or the POST variant. No prerequisites, error conditions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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