Diagnóstico completo do caminho

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: per-item ✅/⚠️/❌ output plus a 'next phase' verdict, the waba_id resolution fallback, and an honest API limitation. It does not mention that fanning out across many Graph endpoints may be slower or rate-limited, which is the remaining gap.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with what is checked, then the use-case framing, then the omission fallback and limitation. The checklist enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what will be reported.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — it does (status symbol per item plus the next phase needing attention). Zero required parameters, fallback resolution, and an explicit coverage limitation are all covered; nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: if waba_id is omitted it falls back to META_WABA_ID or the single WABA visible to the token (the schema only mentions META_WABA_ID). response_format is left to the schema, which is adequate.

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 enumerates exactly what the checklist covers (token, WABA, moeda, verificação, números, webhook, templates), which immediately separates this aggregate diagnostic from the granular wa_check_token / wa_check_waba / wa_list_phone_numbers / wa_check_webhook siblings. An agent knows precisely what it gets without opening the 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 explicit entry-point questions it answers ('em que ponto estou?' and 'por que a mensagem não sai/chega?') and one clear exclusion with a redirect (payment method not covered, check the billing hub instead). It stops short of saying when to prefer the individual check tools over this aggregate, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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