whatsapp_get_newsletter

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates the annotation rather than adding context. It does add a rough shape of the return ('Returns the channel object'), but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid JID or whether the JID must be a joined/subscribed channel.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and returned fields; only the redundant 'Read-only' sentence adds no value given the annotation.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly; no output schema exists, so a short return hint is sufficient.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents 'id' as 'Newsletter JID'. The description's 'by JID' adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get a channel's details') plus the fields returned (name, description, follower count), and 'by JID' implicitly separates it from whatsapp_get_newsletter_by_invite. However, it uses 'channel' while the sibling tool names use 'newsletter', which could cause a brief hesitation in mapping this tool to the newsletter family.

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 'by JID' qualifier hints at when this is the right lookup (you already have the JID, unlike whatsapp_get_newsletter_by_invite or whatsapp_list_newsletters), but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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