Create trial account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects (credentials emailed/WhatsApp'd), non-hard-fail behavior for timezone/country, and post-creation steps (connect via wabaConnectUrl or gambot_exchange_waba_token). It doesn't mention reversibility or permission requirements, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose, then explains WhatsApp options, global fields, fallback behavior, and the alternative tool. It is longer than ideal but every sentence carries useful information, and the structure is logical.

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 complex creation tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the key decision points (trial vs paid, WhatsApp number sourcing, timezone/country fallback) and post-creation next steps. It doesn't describe the return value shape, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap given the rich behavioral guidance.

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 description coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the WhatsApp number options (useFreeNumber, useCoexisting, BYO SIM, buy a SIM) and the global timezone/country behavior, which goes beyond the raw schema. Minor gap: plan/payEach/currency semantics are not elaborated, but the schema covers them.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new FREE-TRIAL organization + first user'), and explicitly distinguishes it from gambot_create_paid_account. It also clarifies the no-card-required aspect, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For a paid account with a card on file (no trial) use gambot_create_paid_account instead.' It also provides clear guidance on WhatsApp number options and global fields, so an agent knows exactly when and how to invoke it.

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