zernio_verify_whatsapp_phone_number

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does (verify a phone number) without mentioning potential side effects (e.g., state change, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling). The description fails to warn about non-idempotency or the consequences of an incorrect code, which is critical for a verification tool.

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 unnecessary words. It conveys the essential information efficiently and is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 is relatively simple with three required parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the tool does and how to use it. However, it does not specify what the output or return value is (e.g., success/failure status, updated phone number state). For a verification tool, this information is important for the agent to determine the next steps. The description is adequate but incomplete regarding the result of the action.

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% with descriptions for each parameter ('accountId', 'phoneNumberId', 'code'). The description adds that the code is received via SMS/voice call, which aligns with the schema's '6-digit verification code'. However, it does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, such as where to obtain the phoneNumberId or what happens if the code is wrong. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'verify' and the resource 'WhatsApp Business phone number', and specifies the method 'using the code received via SMS or voice call'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'request_whatsapp_verification_code' (which sends the code) and 'purchase_whatsapp_phone_number' (which acquires a number), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 after receiving a verification code, which is the natural next step after requesting a code. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The context from sibling tools (e.g., 'request_whatsapp_verification_code') provides clear usage context, but the description lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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