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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden – and it excels. It discloses the rate limit (≤30/hour/key → 429), HMAC signing via x-temsor-signature, the idle $0 cost, the 'No DID sales' restriction, KVKK compliance, and the advanced PBX/Asterisk customization. This is exemplary transparency about side effects, authentication, pricing, and legal constraints.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries operational value: rate limits, methods, events, signing, pricing, legal, and advanced options. It front-loads the core purpose and HTTP verbs before auxiliary details. Slightly long, but no filler; each 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 tool with 6 parameters, 0 required, and no output schema, the description covers the essential call patterns, event list, signing, and rate limiting. It omits explicit response format details (e.g., what GET returns) and doesn't describe the 'webhook_id' parameter beyond schema, but the usage modes are sufficiently clear for 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the conditional semantics of 'url' (present → register, omit → list) and the ping behavior (with/without url). It also expands the events list and clarifies the HMAC signature mechanism, adding interpretive value that the bare parameter descriptions lack.

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 opens with 'Register or list outbound webhooks' – a specific verb+resource pair that tells the agent exactly what the tool does. It enumerates the event types (promise/fact/orchestra/redact) and clearly separates from siblings like pbx_webhooks_deliveries by focusing on registration/listing rather than delivery inspection.

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 clearly explains when to use POST vs GET and the ping option for test deliveries, effectively covering the main usage modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives like pbx_webhooks_deliveries, but the modes are so well defined that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. A slight bump would require an explicit 'use X instead for Y' note.

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