ghl_whatsapp_phone_numbers_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination, error behavior, or authentication requirements. It is minimally transparent but sufficient for a simple getter.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It effectively conveys the core purpose and scope without 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?

Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain the return structure (e.g., array of phone numbers, metadata) or edge cases like what happens when no numbers exist. The description provides the essential context but not complete detail.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, with a useful fallback note ('uses GHL_LOCATION_ID if omitted'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('WhatsApp phone numbers'), and the scope ('for a location'). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools, which cover unrelated domains like knowledge base, forms, and agents.

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 usage when needing WhatsApp phone numbers for a given location, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any contextual guidance beyond the location scope. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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