WhatsApp Business MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions the return format ('JSON with full template details'), but omits behavioral traits like error handling when a template is not found, authentication requirements, rate limiting, or whether this operation is cached vs. real-time.

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 efficiently structured with a clear first sentence summary followed by Args/Returns sections. Each sentence earns its place. The 'Returns' section is slightly redundant given the existence of an output schema, but remains useful for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description appropriately does not exhaustively detail return values. However, with zero required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should clarify the behavior when neither parameter is provided or when both are provided (error vs. precedence).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description successfully compensates by documenting both parameters ('Template name to look up' and 'Meta template ID to look up directly'). It also adds the critical constraint that they are mutually exclusive, which is not captured in the schema structure.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get full details'), resource ('WhatsApp template'), and lookup mechanism ('by name or ID'). The phrase 'full details' effectively distinguishes this from sibling check_template_status, while 'by name or ID' distinguishes it from list_templates.

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?

The description provides critical guidance on mutual exclusivity ('Provide either... not both'), preventing invalid invocations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus check_template_status (status check vs. full retrieval) or list_templates (discovery vs. specific lookup).

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