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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses cost ('free'), scope ('calling wallet's' own registration, implying no cross-account effect), partial effect (only webhook deliveries stop, not push/SMS/Telegram/in-app), and the side effect of notifying the account owner. It omits idempotency/error behavior for a non-existent webhook, but this is solid coverage for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences with no filler: the headline action and cost are front-loaded, then precise behavioral scope, then the notification side effect. Every sentence 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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, side effects, and cost — enough for an agent to call it correctly. The only gaps are edge-case behavior (calling delete when no webhook exists) and return/confirmation shape, which are minor for a tool this simple.

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% — auth_token is fully documented in the schema ('Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Delete the notification webhook' / 'Removes the calling wallet's webhook registration.' The line about other channels continuing distinguishes this from broader notification-disable tools, and it is clearly differentiated from sibling register_webhook and get_webhook.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the description makes clear this stops webhook deliveries while other channels continue, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it never names register_webhook as the reversal path or states when not to use it, leaving the when-vs-alternative guidance entirely implicit.

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