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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses replacement semantics (new URL, new filters, NEW signing secret), the exact payload shape, the signature header construction and freshness window, the 5-second 2xx requirement, the 3-retry policy, the 20-failure disable rule, and the one-time secret return. This is the behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded, with registration semantics first and delivery/verification details after. Nearly every sentence carries operational weight, though the single long paragraph could be broken up for faster scanning.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: it explains what is returned (the secret, once), the side effects of re-calling, the retry/disable behavior, and the payload contract. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and handle the result.

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 url, kind, query, retailer, maxMarkupPct, and minConfidence. The description still adds value by explaining that a repeat call 'replaces the URL and filters' and that only one webhook exists per API key, which is overwrite semantics not expressed in 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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Register (or replace) the HTTPS endpoint we POST to'), and the parenthetical makes the create-or-replace semantics explicit. It clearly differs from the get_webhook and remove_webhook siblings by being the registration path.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context ('for a server-side AI bot that should not hold a connection open'), which implicitly routes the agent away from the long-lived wait_for_drop. It stops short of naming that sibling or stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear but not maximally directive.

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