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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the auth model ('Requires an account key (fh_live_...)'), the failure mode for agent keys ('agent keys answer owner_key_required'), and handling guidance ('does not belong in chat or in a repository'). Note the mild tension with readOnlyHint=false for a reveal operation, but the description itself makes no write claim, so this is not a contradiction.

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 what is returned, then the sibling contrast, then auth and safety notes; every clause carries information. The semicolon-chained single sentence is dense but not padded.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the remaining gaps: purpose, sibling routing, authentication, error behavior, and credential-handling risk. Nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing.

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 form_id and the OAuth-only confirm flag are already fully documented. The description's auth remarks complement the confirm semantics but add little parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Returns the full webhook signing secret (whsec_...) of a form') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling get_webhook, which only shows the URL and a masked secret. An agent can select between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear selection context by contrasting with get_webhook and explaining the motivating use case (the receiving server needs the raw secret to verify deliveries). It stops short of an explicit when-not rule, but the alternative plus rationale is enough to route correctly.

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