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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers: one-time secret reveal, HMAC-SHA256 signing, exponential backoff retries, and tenant-scoped dead-letter queue. It also warns the secret is never shown again, which is critical behavioral context for an agent.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, and the most important fact (secret is shown once) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful operational information.

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 simple create operation with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the key output (secret), the immediate required action (store it), and the delivery guarantees. An agent has what it needs to invoke 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 all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('webhook') and adds the critical one-time secret reveal, which distinguishes this from sibling get/list/disable tools. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does even among many webhook-related siblings.

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 clearly implies this is the create operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over webhook_disable, webhook_get, or webhooks. It provides clear context for the action itself but no direct alternative routing or exclusions.

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