wa_phone_retrieve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('retrieve') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, what data is returned, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for 2 required parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use it properly, or provide any context beyond the basic action. For a retrieval tool in a WhatsApp API context with multiple sibling tools, this leaves too many gaps.

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 description provides no information about parameters, while the input schema has 2 required parameters (wabaId and phoneNumber) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their format, or how they're used, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Retrieve a phone number' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'wa_phone_retrieve'. While it indicates the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'phone number', it lacks specificity about what exactly is retrieved (e.g., details, settings, status) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'wa_phone_retrieve_commerce_settings' or 'wa_phone_retrieve_profile' that retrieve specific aspects of phone numbers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate from sibling tools such as 'wa_phone_list' (which might list multiple numbers) or other retrieve tools for commerce settings or profiles. There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or when to choose other options.

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