cigchat_describe_whatsapp_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly frames the operation as a lookup with no side effects, and adds context about template rejection and broadcast cost. It does not explicitly state edge cases (e.g., template not found), but for a simple read operation this is adequate context.

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: the first states the tool's purpose and output, the second provides essential usage guidance with a consequence. No redundancy, no filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), and the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and why it matters. It also includes the API endpoint for reference. Nothing critical is missing.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Exact template name as approved in cig.chat'). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond 'by name', but since schema coverage is complete, 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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('WhatsApp template by name'), clearly stating what is returned (variable keys, namespace, language). It distinguishes itself from sibling send/broadcast tools by focusing on lookup rather than sending.

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 instructs to call this tool BEFORE sending or broadcasting templates, names the sibling tools (cigchat_send_whatsapp_template, cigchat_broadcast_whatsapp_template_by_tag), and explains the consequence of not doing so (rejection, expensive for broadcasts). This is exemplary when-to-use guidance.

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