Conferir a inscrição do webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: what an empty result implies operationally and that callback URL/subscribed fields are deliberately not returned. It does not describe the shape of the returned app objects.

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 tight sentences: the operation first, the failure interpretation second, the scope exclusion last. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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 does supply the key return semantics (a list of subscribed apps, empty means no delivery) and warns about what is absent. A brief note on what each returned app entry contains would fully close the gap for a diagnostics tool.

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 100%, including the waba_id pattern and the META_WABA_ID fallback plus the response_format enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already documented.

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 ('Lista os apps inscritos na WABA') and even cites the underlying endpoint GET /{waba_id}/subscribed_apps, so the operation is unambiguous. It also draws a scope boundary by saying callback URL and subscribed fields do not appear here, though it never names the sibling tool (wa_check_app_webhook) that would cover them.

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 clear diagnostic context for use: an empty result means Meta is not delivering events for this account, which is exactly the 'message sent but never arrived' symptom. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to wa_check_app_webhook or wa_subscribe_webhooks as the follow-up for missing callback configuration.

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