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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) but say nothing about payloads or credentials. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: delivery body shape, HMAC-SHA256 signing via x-qrc-signature, and the critical disclosure that the signing secret is returned only once.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core action stated first, followed by delivery/auth specifics. No redundancy; the trailing docs link is the only mild filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what gets delivered and that the secret is shown once, which is important for a create call. However, it leaves the scope/companyId relationship and event-selection semantics unexplained, which are central to invoking this tool correctly.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and largely fails it. It gestures at the target URL and event subscriptions but says nothing about scope, companyId, active, or the valid event values and their scoping consequences.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it registers an https endpoint to receive event notifications, and it details the delivery payload. It is clearly identifiable as the create counterpart to webhooks_list/update/delete, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite information (e.g. that company scope likely requires companyId, or what 'tenant' scope grants), and no routing to alternatives. The agent must infer all selection logic from the schema alone.

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