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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context: it explains the source of truth (Unipile mock event) and clarifies that Nilyo does not fabricate provider event payloads. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is compact yet complete. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool is simple (one param, no output schema), and the description covers its purpose, usage steps, and key constraints. It references the environment and alternative tools, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation. A 5 would require explicit return-format details, but the description already sets expectations for a procedure.

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%, and the parameter description clearly explains destination_id and even warns against using the Unipile endpoint ID directly. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline 3 applies when schema fully covers the 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Return the exact test procedure') and clearly differentiates from sibling webhook tools like webhook_get_setup_guide and webhook_get_destination. It also clarifies what it does not do (does not fabricate payloads), leaving no ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use this tool (to retrieve the test procedure) and gives step-by-step context: use Mock accounts/Test & Debug to generate a real fake event, then inspect webhook_get_delivery_logs and the target runtime. It also names the alternative (webhook_get_delivery_logs) and explains the limitation of Nilyo, making the selection obvious.

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