Visão geral do caminho

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it with 'Não acessa a rede'. It also signals that this is a static orientation document (fixed 12-phase structure, defined role split) rather than a query against the user's account, which helps the agent reason about freshness and scope. It stops short of describing output size or shape, so a 4 rather than 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?

Three short sentences: what it contains, when to call it plus the follow-up tool, and the no-network constraint. The payload (12 phases, role split) is front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only static reference tool with no output schema, the description covers content, invocation timing, the sibling to escalate to, and the no-network property. Nothing an agent needs in order 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?

The tool takes zero parameters (additionalProperties: false, empty properties object), so there is no parameter semantics to explain — the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly says nothing about inputs, matching the schema.

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?

The description names a concrete artifact (the complete path to getting a number, including a virtual one, on Meta's official WhatsApp API) and enumerates what it contains: the 12 phases in order, who executes each (you / automatic / together), and what the agent never does. That is far more specific than the vague title 'Visão geral do caminho' and clearly separates it from the detail-oriented wa_guide_get_phase.

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?

It states an explicit trigger condition — use at the start of any conversation about 'conectar número', 'disparos pela API oficial' or 'número virtual' — and names the follow-up tool wa_guide_get_phase for deeper detail. Both when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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