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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: the token requirement, the no-send behavior, and the caveat that a valid signature attests relay observations rather than business truth or exactly-once processing.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core action and its input source are front-loaded, and each remaining sentence adds a distinct constraint or caveat.

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 should ideally hint at the verification result, which it only does implicitly. Otherwise it is complete: inputs, prerequisite token, source of the artifacts, and the meaning of a passing signature are all covered for a read-only verification tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the token, hookId patterns and the 'preserve all fields' instruction. The description reinforces the token requirement and the 'unchanged' constraint on event and receipt but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (verify/check) and resource (hook receipt plus the event it covers), and pins the inputs to a named sibling, get_hook_delivery. An agent can distinguish this from accept_hook_event (which sends events) 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?

Explains the workflow context: it consumes the unchanged event and receipt returned by get_hook_delivery and requires the delivery token. It also states what it does not do ('does not send an event'), implicitly steering event submission to accept_hook_event, though no other sibling is named as an alternative.

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