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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses synchronous delivery, that the payload is flagged `test: true` with sample member data, the returned fields (HTTP status, duration, error), the admin-role requirement, and the preconditions. It omits whether the test event is logged in webhook events or any rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences: behavior and return shape first, then usage and prerequisites. Every clause carries information an agent needs; 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?

No output schema exists, but the description itself enumerates the return content (event sent, HTTP status, duration, error), and covers auth, preconditions and side effects. An agent has everything needed to call this 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 100%, with both parameters already documented (orgId from list_orgs, smartLinkId from list_smart_links). The description adds only the constraint that the link must have `webhook` set, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: deliver one test `smart_link.scanned` event for a specific smart link. The scope (single synthetic event, synchronous, to the link's own endpoint) clearly separates it from siblings like test_webhook_endpoint and replay_webhook_event.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: verifying URL, signature and tag routing before a real scan. It also names prerequisites (admin role, link with `webhook` set). It stops short of naming the alternative tools for endpoint-level testing, so not a full 5.

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