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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that it returns instructions and provides sequencing guidance, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like output format or the absence of side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 with no filler: the first states the tool's purpose and scope, the second gives usage timing. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

For a simple guide-retrieval tool with one enum parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage timing. There is no output schema, but 'runtime-specific instructions' adequately conveys what the caller will receive. The only minor gap is not stating the format of the returned instructions, which is unlikely to hinder correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming each runtime ('n8n, OpenClaw, Hermes, Make or a generic agent') that maps directly to the 'runtime' enum values, making it clear that the parameter selects which runtime's instructions to return.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('runtime-specific instructions for receiving Unipile realtime events') and enumerates the exact runtimes supported. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling webhook tools like webhook_create_destination, webhook_get_destination, and webhook_list_available_events.

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 gives explicit temporal guidance: 'Use BEFORE creating the webhook when the user has not yet produced a public receiver URL.' This tells the agent both when to invoke it and the precondition that selects it over alternatives, leaving no ambiguity.

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