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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that 'The token appears only once: keep it', that 'The token has no recovery', that there is a limit 'per network and per hour', and that after secret rotation 'the previous secret still signs for 24 h'. These details are essential for safe invocation and are not present in the 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?

The description is long and includes extensive implementation details about webhook signature verification ('HMAC-SHA256 of id.timestamp.body') and secret rotation that are not necessary for selecting or invoking create_owner. The first sentence is front-loaded, but the remainder is verbose and partially off-topic.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and zero parameters, the description covers what is created (token and secret), how to use the token, recovery limitations, rate limits, and secret rotation behavior. It is thorough, though some details about webhook verification go beyond what an agent needs to call this specific tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, this baseline is 4; the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 states a clear action: 'Creates the guest (token edm_…, issued by the account library) that opens alerts and watches, and the secret whsec_… that signs the webhooks.' It identifies the specific resources created, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_owner or rotate_webhook_secret.

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 implies usage by explaining 'No sign-up' and that the token should be kept and sent in 'Authorization: Bearer in the alert and watch tools.' However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_owner) or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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