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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), so the mutation nature is known. The description adds one useful behavior: the signing_secret is returned once and must be used for verification. It does not disclose that the webhook is company-scoped is already in description, but it does not mention what happens on duplicates, permissions, or whether the secret is in output (no output schema). It adds slight value beyond annotations but not rich context.

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 with zero redundancy. The main purpose is stated first, then a critical security note. Every word is functional. Perfectly sized for a 2-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple with low complexity, and the annotations cover safety (non-destructive mutation). The description covers the creation purpose and the secret behavior. However, it does not specify the return format (no output schema) beyond the secret, and does not mention error cases (e.g., duplicate URL) or permissions. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but not complete.

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%: both id and url have descriptions. The description adds a constraint that the URL must be HTTPS on a public host (already in schema for url) and that the signing_secret is returned once. The description ties the id to the company scope, which is not in the schema's id description. This adds meaningful context for the id parameter beyond the bare 'Company id'.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a company-scoped webhook)Skip over the clear verb 'Create' and the resource 'company-scoped webhook.' It distinguishes from create_job_webhook (which is job-scoped) but does not explicitly name that sibling; the distinction is implied by the scope. It is clear enough for an agent to identify it among the many create_* tools.

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 gives a clear context: when creating a company-scoped webhook, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over create_job_webhook or list/delete/rotate webhooks. It states the purpose, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or comparison. It provides practical guidance (signing_secret) for post-creation, but not usage alternatives.

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