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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: the cron checks hourly, it's edge-triggered (not repeated), and returns a subscriptionId. This disclosure of polling frequency and triggering semantics goes beyond what annotations provide, though it could mention that the webhook URL receives POST requests and any error handling or retry behavior.

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 concise at three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first explains the action and supported signals, second details trigger behavior, third lists use cases. No redundant information; every sentence is necessary and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 2 enums, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose, supported signals, trigger behavior, and use cases. It does not explain the output schema's contents (likely includes subscriptionId), but since an output schema exists, that burden is reduced. It could improve by mentioning that the webhook must be HTTPS and that the tool creates a persistent subscription.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the supported signals in detail (overall 0–100 score, shock propagation risk) and the meaning of 'above'/'below' direction with a default. However, the description does not explicitly clarify that threshold is 0–100, which is already in the schema. The 'any' signal option is explained, adding context beyond schema enums.

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 clearly states the tool registers a webhook for threshold-based alerts on DPX intelligence signals. It lists the supported signals explicitly and distinguishes itself by specifying the type of intelligence subscription (threshold-based webhook) versus other sibling tools like intelligence.subscription.get or intelligence.subscription.delete.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for treasury alert systems, TMS integrations, or autonomous agent monitoring loops. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by implying the return of a subscriptionId for status checks and cancellation, which relates to intelligence.subscription.get and intelligence.subscription.delete. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of alerts and the sibling names make alternatives clear.

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