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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the action is asynchronous, that the webhook is signed afresh, that paused webhooks still process it, and that redelivery repeats the endpoint's behavior. It also names a specific error condition (submission_not_stored), making the tool's behavior highly predictable.

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?

Every sentence carries essential information: the queueing behavior, the async response, the paused-webhook exception, the side-effect warning, and the refusal condition. It is dense but efficient and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral context needed to call the tool correctly: async semantics, where to observe the outcome, handling of paused webhooks, and the main error condition. A small gap is that it does not describe the success response format, but 'answers when it is queued' provides enough orientation.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema with source guidance such as 'from list_forms' and 'from list_submissions or the delivery log.' The description adds little parameter-specific meaning, so the schema carries this dimension.

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 action (queues one submission for redelivery), the target resource (this webhook only), and the key distinguishing detail that it signs the payload afresh. The scope is unambiguous and clearly differentiates it from related webhook and submission tools.

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?

Explains the async behavior ('answers when it is queued, not when it is delivered') and directs the agent to the delivery log for the outcome. It also notes that paused webhooks still receive the redelivery and that the tool is refused when submissions are not stored, giving practical context for when it applies.

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