whatsapp_templates_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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about what templates are for, but says nothing about volume, pagination, or approval-status semantics that a caller might need; the compact/full output trade-off lives only in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the business context. Minor waste: 'Actions: list — all templates...' largely restates the opening sentence since only one action exists.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description does the right work by naming the five fields returned, and annotations carry the safety profile. The only real gap is the unexplained agentId parameter, which is a small but real omission.

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 only 50%. The description explains the sole 'action' value ('list — all templates of the WhatsApp Business account'), and phoneId/mode are documented in the schema. However, agentId is undocumented in both places, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (WhatsApp message templates of a number) and it enumerates the returned fields (name, language, category, approval status, components). The 'read' vs 'write' split against whatsapp_templates_write is implied by the name and the single 'list' action, but never stated explicitly.

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 gives domain context that templates are needed to message outside the 24-hour window and for broadcast campaigns, which hints at why an agent would call it. It never states when to prefer this over siblings like whatsapp_templates_write, whatsapp_numbers_read, or whatsapp_campaigns_read, so routing is left to inference.

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