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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the payload is signed with an 'example secret', the included verifier is guaranteed to accept the sample, and no key or API call is required. It stops short of describing payload size or exact return shape, but the output schema covers that.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the supporting detail. Every clause earns its place: the payload contents, the verifier, the languages, and the no-auth/no-call fact are all decision-relevant.

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 two-parameter sample-fetch tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing. Return-value details are covered by the output schema, and the free/no-key nature is stated explicitly.

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 documented and enum-constrained, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats the language choices (TypeScript, Python, Go) and the event concept but adds no new syntax or constraint detail — the 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 specific verb+resource+scope: returns a sample webhook delivery (raw body and headers) for one event, plus a signature verifier in one of three languages. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling read tools (get_company, get_job, search_*), which query live API data rather than static sample payloads.

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 motivating context clearly — 'so a receiver can be tested end to end' — and notes 'No API call, no key needed, free', which tells the agent this needs no auth and has no side effects. It doesn't explicitly contrast against the sibling tools, but the use case is unambiguous.

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