whatsapp_numbers_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new context: details and voice_status fetch live data from Meta (external, network-dependent calls), and voice_status is explicitly a re-check with Meta. It doesn't warn about rate limits or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and sibling routing before the compressed action list. The pipe-delimited action enumeration is dense but every clause carries information. Slightly run-on, with 'Needs: phoneId.' echoed twice, which is minor 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back; it does this per action (status/mode/settings, display name/quality rating/messaging limit/verification, conversation analytics, voice-calling status). That is sufficient for correct invocation, though return shape for analytics is left loose.

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 50%, and the description compensates well by spelling out what each action does and that phoneId is required for details and voice_status. It also indirectly clarifies agentId as scoping to one agent. It adds little about the mode parameter beyond what the schema already documents, and never explicitly says phoneId is ignored for list/analytics.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Read details of the WhatsApp numbers connected to an agent") and then enumerates the four supported actions with what each returns. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (get_agent_channels, get_whatsapp_ai_rules), so an agent can pick it out of a very crowded sibling list.

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?

Gives explicit routing advice: use get_agent_channels for a quick 'is it connected' check and get_whatsapp_ai_rules for reply rules. Each action also states its scope (list/details/analytics/voice_status) and which requires phoneId, which is strong per-action usage guidance. It stops short of saying when to use this versus the mutation sibling whatsapp_numbers_write or update_whatsapp_number_settings.

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