get_whatsapp_conversation_history

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's primary function. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, if pagination is handled, or any rate limits. The description relies entirely on the input schema without enriching agent understanding.

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 a single sentence and relatively concise, but it contains an unnecessary placeholder '[query]' that undermines clarity. The purpose is front-loaded but the formatting is slightly awkward due to the mixed language and placeholder.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, given the large number of sibling tools, more context about the output format (e.g., message structure) or read-only nature would improve completeness. Without output schema, the agent lacks guidance on what to expect.

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 describes both parameters with clear examples and constraints (phone format, limit range). The description introduces the ambiguous term '[query]' which does not align with the parameter named 'phone', potentially confusing the agent. It adds no additional semantic value and may actually mislead.

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 verb ('Ver historial de conversacion WhatsApp' / 'Muestra el historial de mensajes de WhatsApp') and the resource (WhatsApp conversation history with a specific phone). It distinguishes the tool from generic conversation retrieval tools by specifying 'WhatsApp' and 'phone'. However, the inclusion of '[query]' in the description is slightly confusing as it does not correspond to any parameter in the input schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_conversation_detail', 'get_whatsapp_message_logs', or 'search_conversations'. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use, or any usage context.

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