Get instance connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' adds nothing. However, the description contributes context annotations cannot: the causal consequence that messages will fail when status is not 'connected' and which tools to use in that case. It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a polling status check that is minor.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the conditional guidance. The trailing 'Read-only' is the only low-value clause, but it is a short tag rather than noise.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields (status, phone number, profile name). Combined with the failure-mode guidance and the fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call this 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% and the schema already explains the optional instance_id, the ZAPZAP_INSTANCE_ID fallback, and the list_instances prerequisite. The description adds nothing about parameters, so 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+resource ('Returns the instance's connection status') and even enumerates the possible status values. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_qr_code or connect_instance, which are named as follow-ups.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Use before sending') and routes to alternatives under a stated condition ('if not connected ... use get_qr_code or connect_instance'). Nothing is left to inference.

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