Fetch Profile

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish the safety profile. The description adds minor context about return content ('name, status, etc.') but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or failure modes. It is consistent with annotations.

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 one succinct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes an example of the return content, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and strong annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly more explicit about differentiating from fetch_profile_picture, but the provided information suffices for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The one parameter 'number' is fully described in the schema. The description adds no further semantic depth beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'WhatsApp profile information of a contact', further clarifying by listing fields ('name, status, etc.'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like fetch_profile_picture, which targets the avatar.

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 implies the use case (retrieving profile info) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_profile_picture or check_whatsapp_numbers. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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