info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP route and that the payload identifies the served platform, but says nothing about auth requirements, caching, or response shape. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is an adequate 3.

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?

Two short clauses with the substance (what the endpoint returns) front-loaded ahead of the parenthetical route. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical HTTP path is arguably redundant for an MCP agent.

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 no output schema, the description must convey the return value, and it does so at a high level ('which platform'). But for a metadata/introspection endpoint adjacent to 'health' and 'status', it leaves the agent without a clear reason to prefer it or any notion of the response structure.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The description cannot meaningfully add more here.

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 states a specific resource and outcome: it reports which platform (e.g. WhatsApp) this provider instance serves. That is far more informative than the bare name 'info'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similar introspection siblings like 'health' and 'status'.

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 guidance on when to call this versus 'health', 'status', or 'channels_get'. The description gives no context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess why this metadata endpoint exists.

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