Conferir o webhook do app

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: it requires META_APP_ID and META_APP_SECRET in the MCP environment and uses an app token. That credential prerequisite is the kind of thing an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and the endpoint, then credentials, then the diagnostic scenario. Tight overall, though the aside about a real proven cause is slightly more narrative than an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what is returned (callback URL and signed fields) and which subfields matter when checking coexistence (smb_message_echoes, history, smb_app_state_sync). Combined with the stated credential requirements, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an enum, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about response_format, which is acceptable given the coverage, but leaves it at the baseline rather than earning more.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mostra a URL de callback e os campos assinados do app') plus the underlying endpoint GET /{app_id}/subscriptions, which is concrete evidence of what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling wa_check_webhook, so an agent must infer that this one is app-level and the other WABA-level.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering symptom ('a mensagem não chega no sistema') and even names the observed failure signatures (callback vazio, campo 'messages' faltando), plus a secondary use case for coexistence setups. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from wa_check_webhook or wa_check_coexistence, so no exclusions are stated.

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