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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context — that the call fans out to 3 API calls (a cost/latency signal) and that the response includes plan data, existing webhooks/inboxes, setup steps, and signature verification code, plus retry and outage semantics.

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?

Content is front-loaded — purpose first, then the trigger condition, then the cost figure. The enumerations (plan, webhooks/inboxes, setup steps, signature verification, retries, outages) are dense but each item conveys something the agent would otherwise have to discover; only the 'API calls: 3' fragment is borderline metadata.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the substantive semantics: what it personalizes, what it teaches, and its retry/outage content. The only unresolved gap is why a 'game' input exists on a webhook-explanation tool, which is not addressed anywhere.

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% for the single optional 'game' parameter, so the baseline is 3. However, the description never references the 'game' parameter or explains how it affects an explainer about webhook setup, leaving a mild mismatch between the declared input and the described purpose.

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 names a specific resource and scope: how Cito webhooks work personalized to 'this user' — plan, existing webhooks and inboxes, setup steps, signature verification, retries, and outage behavior. It is clearly an explainer/onboarding tool, distinguishable from sibling CRUD tools like list_webhooks, create_webhook, or test_webhook.

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 an explicit entry-point rule: 'Start here when a user asks about webhooks or describes polling for changes,' which routes the agent ahead of the many sibling webhook tools. It does not name explicit when-not cases or alternatives (e.g. 'for raw lists use list_webhooks'), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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