Conferir a conta (WABA)

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behaviour, so the description's value-add is the failure contract: error #100 and its two distinct causes (wrong WABA ID versus missing user access). That is genuinely useful pre-call context, though it stops short of describing output shape or the markdown vs json difference.

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 read before the failure condition. The phase-name parenthetical is slightly opaque jargon, but nothing is redundant.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields, and the safety/param burden is carried by annotations and schema respectively. Only the shape of the #100 failure payload is left unspecified.

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 fully documented, including the META_WABA_ID fallback and the response_format enum meanings. The description adds nothing beyond naming the WABA ID as the identity input, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (reads) and resource (WABA) and enumerates the fields it surfaces: name, currency, account review status, business verification status. That makes it clearly distinct from siblings like wa_list_phone_numbers or wa_check_token, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(fases ids e usuario-sistema-token)' implies where this fits in a guided diagnostic flow, but it never says plainly 'use this when X, use wa_check_token instead when Y'. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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