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

The description reveals key behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it blocks until a request or timeout, returns method/path/headers/body/provider/event, and supports sequential waiting via `after`. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of a potentially long-running call.

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 sentences, no fluff, with the core blocking and return behavior stated first and usage follow-up second. 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned in reasonable detail and gives the main usage scenario. It is slightly incomplete on the timeout edge case—what exactly is returned if the timeout elapses with no request—but overall sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning to `after` by tying it to the last request's createdAt and clarifies that the tool waits until timeout, augmenting the schema's raw field definitions.

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 states a specific verb ('Block until') and resource ('next request reaches a webhook URL'), and clarifies the distinguishing behavior from siblings like list_webhook_requests or get_webhook_request: it waits and returns the request in full. This lets an agent differentiate it without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly says to use it right after triggering an action that should send a webhook, and explains how to wait for the following request by passing `after`. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.

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