get_contact_chats

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it implies a read-only retrieval and discloses the defaults for limit (20) and page (0). It does not state ordering, whether group chats count as "involving" the contact, or whether pagination past the last page errors or returns empty.

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?

One clear lead sentence followed by a compact args list; nothing is padded or redundant. The lead sentence is front-loaded, though it lacks the routing information that would make the brevity fully efficient.

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?

The output schema means return values needn't be described, and all three inputs are covered, so the basics are present. For a lookup tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, however, the ambiguous scope of "involving" leaves the agent unsure what a result set actually contains.

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 0%, but the args block documents all three parameters, including the required JID and the pagination defaults, compensating for the schema gap. It falls short of a 5 because it never explains the JID format or what happens when limit is exceeded.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get all WhatsApp chats involving the contact") and scopes results to a single contact's JID. This implicitly separates it from list_chats and get_chat, but it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_direct_chat_by_contact, list_chats, or get_last_interaction, all of which overlap in scope. The only hint is the word "involving," which is never explained, so an agent gets no explicit selection criteria.

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