Listar números da WABA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain context not in the annotations: which status values appear (CONNECTED, CLOUD_API), and the causal link between name_status PENDING_REVIEW and error 131037. It does not mention rate limits or result volume, so it stops short of 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then the payoff fields. The enumerated field list is dense but every item is informative; only the parenthetical about 131037 makes the sentence long enough to be slightly unwieldy.

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 only two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering mutability/safety, the description supplies the remaining piece an agent needs: what the returned records contain and how to interpret the critical status field. No output schema exists, and the field enumeration compensates for that adequately.

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%, so both waba_id (including the META_WABA_ID fallback) and response_format (markdown vs json) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema carries the burden.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Lista os números da WABA') and then enumerates exactly which fields come back (Phone Number ID, status, verification, platform, display name, quality, messaging tier), so an agent knows precisely what this tool retrieves. The resource (phone numbers of a WABA) cleanly separates it from siblings like wa_list_templates or wa_check_waba.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of diagnostic fields (name_status PENDING_REVIEW → error 131037), which hints this is the tool to reach for when send failures occur. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus wa_check_waba, wa_discover_ids, or wa_diagnose, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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