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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool queues a signed sample payload (a mutation) and explains the HMAC verification format, including header, timestamp tolerance, and signing method. This goes beyond a simple 'sends a test' and gives the agent actionable verification details, though it doesn't mention side effects like idempotency or whether it affects configuration.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose and timing, the second gives the exact signature verification method. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool's action, purpose, and verification details. It implies a pre-existing webhook configuration but doesn't explicitly state a dependency on delivery_configure, which is a minor gap. There is no output schema, but for a test tool that returns nothing meaningful beyond a queued payload, the description is sufficient.

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 input schema has one parameter 'brand' with a clear description ('Brand slug.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not mention the brand parameter, but the schema already explains it. Baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and no additional meaning is needed for this simple parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: queue a signed sample payload to the configured webhook to verify HMAC verification. It specifies the action (queue), the resource (configured webhook), and the outcome (verify before real content). It also differentiates from sibling tools like delivery_replay and delivery_configure by focusing on testing the signature.

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 when to use this tool: 'before real content depends on it', indicating it's for pre-production testing. It also provides specific verification steps, which guides the agent on how to interpret the result. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for initial webhook verification rather than replaying or configuring.

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