List accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: the account statuses ('ready', 'qr_ready', 'disconnected', 'failed') and their operational meanings, as well as sort order. This helps the agent know what to expect from the call.

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, readable sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then packs in the most actionable status meanings. Every part earns its place and no filler is present.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral facts: what is listed, the ordering, and the meaning of each status. Pagination details are already in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the input schema already documents limit, cursor, and projectId. The description does not need to re-explain parameters; it adds value primarily through status semantics. 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('linked WhatsApp numbers (accounts)'), and adds ordering ('newest first') plus status semantics. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account or reconnect_account.

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 implies this is the go-to tool for listing linked WhatsApp accounts and interpreting their readiness, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over get_account or when not to use it. The status explanations give helpful context for acting on results, but no direct alternative guidance is provided.

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