wa_get_message_status

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

Despite having empty annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral limitation: the Graph API does not expose a polling endpoint for delivery/read transitions. It also clarifies that the tool simply 'retrieves the message resource directly and surfaces whatever Meta returns.' It doesn't mention error handling or authentication, but the most important caveat is covered.

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 three concise, purposeful sentences. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage context and the webhook caveat, and the third identifies the required input. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple lookup tool, the description is highly complete: it defines the operation, specifies the triggering event (after wa_send_template), explains the limitation of status polling, and identifies the key input. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the 'fields' parameter and the phrase 'surfaces whatever Meta returns.'

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 schema already provides full description coverage for both parameters (100%). The description's line 'Inputs: the wamid returned by wa_send_template' reinforces the message_id parameter but adds no new semantic 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up information about a previously sent WhatsApp message by its ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wa_send_template or wa_get_templates, which have different purposes.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this after wa_send_template to confirm Graph API received the message.' It also provides a when-not by explaining that delivery/read status is pushed asynchronously via webhooks and no polling endpoint exists, so the tool is not for real-time status transitions.

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