check_site_whatsapp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that only href links matching wa.me/api.whatsapp.com are read and that body-text numbers are ignored because their WhatsApp validity is unknowable. This is a key limitation. It does not mention side effects or output, but the dominant behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. The second paragraph adds essential boundary information about href-only reading. The phrase 'takes a few seconds' is slightly extraneous but does not detract overall.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the input and processing are well described. However, the description does not state what the tool returns when a number is found nor what happens when no matching link exists. Since there is no output schema, this leaves a meaningful gap in the agent's ability to interpret the result.

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 schema has one 'url' parameter with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the URL is the website to open and check, but it adds no format constraints, protocol expectations, or invalid-URL behavior. The parameter meaning is recoverable from the tool action, but barely beyond the parameter name itself.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'opens one website and finds the declared WhatsApp number.' It also precisely scopes the method—reading only wa.me/api.whatsapp.com href links—which clearly separates this tool from the broader collection/export siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_collection or get_leads. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent is left to infer its role in a larger workflow.

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