Conferir coexistência

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real substance: the exact upstream endpoint queried, the field combination that must hold for coexistence, and the fact that throughput is fixed at 20 mps under coexistence. Missing only the concrete response shape beyond the two flag semantics.

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 short blocks: what it proves and the field logic first, then the usage trigger. The endpoint spec and the 20 mps note are compact and each carries information an agent needs; no 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 two-optional-param read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is queried, how to read the result, and when to run it. The only gap is the exact returned payload/error behavior if the number isn't on the Cloud API at all.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are self-documented, including the fallback to META_PHONE_NUMBER_ID and the response_format enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., which phone_number_id to pick, when json is preferable), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names the specific check (Meta's official coexistence test) and even the underlying call GET /{phone_number_id}?fields=is_on_biz_app,platform_type, plus the interpretation rule (is_on_biz_app=true + CLOUD_API). That makes it clearly distinct from siblings like wa_check_waba or wa_list_phone_numbers, which inspect different objects.

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?

Explicitly says to use it after completing the Embedded Signup ('coexistencia' phase) or to prove a number is NOT in coexistence, which is a clear positive and negative trigger. It doesn't name a fallback sibling for related diagnostics, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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