bach-whatsapp_number_validators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It omits critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, and error handling behaviors. It does not clarify what data is returned beyond the implied status check.

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 efficiently structured sentences with no redundancy. The first states purpose, the second states input requirements. It is appropriately front-loaded, though the second sentence could be more specific about parameter formatting.

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 complete absence of annotations, output schema, and defined input parameters, the description is insufficient. It fails to describe the response structure, possible error states, or prerequisite authentication steps that would be necessary for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 contains zero parameters, yet the description references providing 'the number' and 'country code'. While this attempts to compensate for the empty schema by indicating required inputs, it creates ambiguity about whether these are path parameters, body fields, or missing schema definitions. With zero schema parameters, baseline is 4, but the mismatch reduces clarity.

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 and resources. However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'validate_single_number_via_get_request' or explain why to use POST versus GET.

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 second sentence provides implied usage guidance ('provide the number along with the corresponding country code'), but lacks explicit when-to-use criteria or alternatives. It does not explain when to use 'bulk_validation' instead, or when to prefer this over the business-specific check tools.

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