whatsapp_get_privacy_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's "Read-only" restatement carries no additional information. "Returns the settings" adds marginal transparency about the response's nature, but there is no mention of permission requirements, whether values are account-wide, or rate behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the scope front-loaded. Minor redundancy: "Read-only" duplicates the annotation, and "Returns the settings" is near-filler, but the description remains tight overall.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned setting categories is exactly the detail an agent needs to decide whether this tool satisfies an information need. Sufficient, though it could note the setting-value domain (e.g. everyone/contacts/nobody).

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description helpfully identifies which setting categories are exposed, which is the only semantic content a zero-parameter read tool can offer.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get the account's privacy settings") with the covered sub-settings enumerated (last seen, profile picture, about, groups, read receipts), so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly name the write counterpart whatsapp_set_privacy_setting, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 read-only framing implies the appropriate use case (inspecting current privacy configuration) and the sibling naming convention makes the setter the obvious alternative for changes. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, leaving usage to inference.

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