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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: the secret is shown only once and never returned, no test event is sent, the tool returns an approval URL first, and no actual change occurs until human approval. These asynchronous and security behaviors are critical for an agent and are not captured by the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence adds a necessary behavioral or workflow fact: approval flow, secret handling, no test event, approval URL, idempotent reuse. There is no filler, and the most important purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the operation is a two-parameter async registration, the description covers the full lifecycle: preparation, native review, event delivery, secret disclosure, approval URL, and retrieval via requestId. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by saying 'Reuse the identical requestId and details to retrieve the result,' which clarifies that both parameters act as an idempotency/correlation handle. It also implies the URL must be HTTPS from the opening phrase. Yet it does not explicitly explain the details subfields (name, url) or the purpose of requestId beyond reuse.

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 opens with a precise action and resource: 'Prepare registration of a public HTTPS webhook.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from a direct mutation by stating 'No change occurs until separate human approval,' and the sibling list shows other webhook tools (revoke, list, test) that this one is not.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when preparing a webhook registration that awaits native review and returns an approval URL. It also warns 'Registration sends no test event,' which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when-not-to-use beyond this.

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