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

Annotations declare the mutation/idempotency profile, and the description adds traits the annotations cannot express: pages render in a browser sandbox where scripts and forms do not run, and reset:true restores the default. It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens to in-flight requests, but the sandbox constraint is real added value.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then use cases, then the sandbox caveat and reset. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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 an output schema, full parameter coverage, and annotations present, the description supplies the remaining decision-relevant context: what it configures, why you'd use it, and the sandbox limitation. Only auth/permission expectations and failure behavior are left implicit.

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 schema already documents body size, status range, header shape, path_prefix matching, and reset semantics. The description's mentions of reset and headers largely restate schema text, adding only the framing of inbox-wide vs sub-path application — baseline 3.

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 precise verb+resource ('Choose what Porch sends back to callers') plus the exact scope (whole inbox or a sub-path) and the configurable surface (status, headers, body). This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, all of which read or manage requests/inboxes rather than shape the reply.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios (webhook verification handshakes, OAuth redirect landing page, 302 with Location header) and the reset escape hatch. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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