Look up WhatsApp details

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value with 'Nothing is changed', visibility caveats ('when the account can see it'), and explicit not_supported failure modes for two actions. It leaves pagination behavior for limits/cursors undescribed beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a scannable action list; every bullet earns its place. The opening sentence is dense and slightly run-on when it crams the sticker pack and catalog order into the same clause.

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 carries the return-value burden, and it does describe what each action yields (picture URL, business address/email/categories/hours, prefilled text, directory, sticker pack contents, order products/quantities/totals). Pagination semantics for bots are the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by tying each action to its relevant inputs (resolve_link's link/kind, order's token/orderId, bots' paging) and explaining what the resulting identifiers refer to. It does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Read) plus resource (WhatsApp details) and scopes it to a linked number, then enumerates all six actions with a one-line gloss of each. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like lookup_contacts or get_message without opening the 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?

Per-action entries imply when each mode applies and add per-action conditions (e.g. resolve_link 'Fails with not_supported when WhatsApp does not offer it to the account', bots 'as the account sees it'). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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