Get every WhatsApp conversation from the last N hours

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are grouped by chat, and system notices are excluded by default so the counts reflect actual conversation content. That's important, non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before invoking the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important information: what the result looks like and the main use case. The phrasing 'summaries are conversation' is slightly awkward, but it does not undermine clarity.

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's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, grouping behavior, the default exclusion of system notices, and the main lazy use case. There is no output schema, so a bit more return-value explanation could be useful, but the description's core value is strong.

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 input schema already has 100% parameter coverage, including useful descriptions for types, hours, filter, and include_system. The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing the effect of include_system, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and scope: it returns everything that happened recently, grouped by chat. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the alternative approach of combining list_chats and read_messages, making its purpose and differentiating position unmistakable.

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 concrete guidance on when to choose this tool: use it as the catch-up tool instead of calling list_chats plus read_messages per chat. It also identifies a specific behavior modifier (pass include_system) for when the caller needs WhatsApp's system notices, which helps the agent decide whether default behavior is sufficient.

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