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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly: synchronous delivery, return payload (event sent, HTTP status, duration, error), what it validates for, the `test: true` synthetic payload, and the admin-role requirement. No contradiction with 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?

Two dense sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and following with the differentiating detail and prerequisite. Nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return contents (event sent plus HTTP status, duration, and error), the synchronous nature, the admin requirement, and the validation performed. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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%, so the schema already documents both orgId and endpointId thoroughly. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: deliver one test `smart_link.scanned` event to a webhook endpoint. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool test_smart_link_webhook, so the agent can select correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context and names the alternative: this tool checks the URL and signature before any tag exists, whereas test_smart_link_webhook also checks a tag's `posRef` routing. That is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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