Get a community

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/no-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the call hits WhatsApp live rather than cached data, must not be polled, and surfaces a 429 whatsapp_rate_limited with a retry_after wait — useful beyond the annotations. It does not describe auth requirements or not-found handling.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it reads, the no-poll constraint, the rate-limit remedy), with the purpose front-loaded. Nothing is redundant.

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 focuses on invocation behavior and error handling, which is the right allocation for a single-resource read. It leaves the failure modes for an invalid or inaccessible community JID unaddressed, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'community' parameter is documented there with an example JID format, so the description correctly defers. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline rather than added value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one community') and adds a scoping constraint ('this channel's number belongs to'), which clearly separates it from the list-style siblings like list_community_subgroups. It does not explicitly name the nearest alternative (get_group), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives actionable timing guidance ('do not poll it') and explains what to do when throttled (wait retry_after on a 429), which is real when-to-use context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when a different sibling should be used instead.

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