Conferir o token

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that the token is never displayed ('Nunca mostra o token') and by implying an external call to Meta's debug_token endpoint. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, which keeps it below a 5.

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, front-loaded with what is validated before the when-to-use triggers. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 compensates by listing what the check reports (type, expiry, permissions, account access) and the safety guarantee about the token. What the exact response shape looks like is left implicit, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 (response_format) with an enum and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 ('Valida o META_ACCESS_TOKEN com debug_token') and enumerates exactly what is verified: SYSTEM_USER status, expiry, permissions, and accessible WhatsApp accounts. This enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like wa_check_waba or wa_check_coexistence without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 two concrete invocation triggers: immediately after token generation (naming the 'usuario-sistema-token' phase) and when 'Session has expired' appears. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it falls just short of the top band.

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