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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a signing secret is returned and 'shown once', which materially affects how an agent must handle the response. It does not cover auth requirements, but it exceeds what the annotations provide.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the one-shot secret disclosure is placed immediately after the action statement. Nothing is wasted.

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, return values need not be explained, and annotations already cover the mutation/safety profile; the description still usefully flags the one-time secret. The remaining gap is usage context — when creating a webhook is appropriate and what must be true beforehand.

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%, with both url and events documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Create a webhook endpoint') that an agent can easily distinguish from delete_webhook and list_webhooks. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or scope boundary, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., verified domain or reachable HTTPS endpoint), and no mention of how this differs from send_test_webhook_event. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.

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