zernio_request_whatsapp_verification_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method (sms/voice) but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites (e.g., must have a connected WhatsApp account). The behavior is straightforward, but more context would improve transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose.

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 tool has three simple required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic action but lacks context about the overall verification flow (e.g., that this is a step before using 'verify_whatsapp_phone_number'). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, and all parameters have descriptions. The description reiterates the 'method' parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'request', the resource 'verification code', and the purpose 'to verify a WhatsApp Business phone number'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'zernio_verify_whatsapp_phone_number' which likely consumes the code.

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 implies that this tool is used to obtain a verification code, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to request via SMS vs voice, or that it's a prerequisite to verification). No guidance on when not to use it.

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