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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that a supplied secret REPLACES the existing one while omitting it leaves it unchanged (the key side effect for an idempotent-but-mutating tool), names the exact delivery headers (X-Telesherpa-Secret, Authorization: Bearer), and explains the two signature levels including the HMAC input string for signature=2. This is the kind of auth/security context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the payload contract, then the security details in a logical order. It is dense and somewhat run-on, and the trailing '| EN: webhook, subscribe, ...' keyword list is filler, but overall it earns its length given the non-obvious HMAC/auth semantics.

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 5-parameter, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers payload shape, header delivery modes, signature options, and secret replacement behavior — enough to call it correctly. It does not say what the call returns (webhook id/handle) or how it behaves when a webhook already exists, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the auth 'both' default and the secret-replacement rule, which the schema already documents, and adds little new per-parameter meaning beyond the header names — the genuinely novel content is the payload/response behavior, not parameter semantics.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Notification-Webhook einrichten') and then spells out the exact effect: every new notification is additionally POSTed as JSON to url, with the payload fields enumerated. That distinguishes it immediately from ontouser_webhook_show / _test / _delete without needing the schemas.

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?

'Ersetzt das Pollen' gives the motivating context for choosing this tool over polling for notifications. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (webhook_test to verify, webhook_delete to remove, webhook_show to inspect), so exclusions are absent, but the when-to-use signal is clear.

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