get_business_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fields that can be retrieved, but does not mention default behavior (e.g., whether omitting 'fields' returns all fields), authentication prerequisites, or error cases. This is a simple read-only operation, so the gap is moderate.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and then concisely lists the returnable fields. There is zero redundant wording or filler.

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 simple retrieval tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is almost complete. It names the resource and the fields, and the schema covers the parameter. It does not explicitly state that omitting 'fields' returns all fields, but this is easily inferred from the schema and the tool's purpose.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with an enum and a description for the 'fields' parameter. The description lists the same fields in prose, which adds some readability but no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'WhatsApp Business Profile' and enumerates the included fields (about, address, description, email, websites, profile picture URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_business_profile, which is a write operation.

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 clear context that this tool is for retrieving a business profile and lists the available fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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