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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the action, trigger events, matching logic, the POST payload fields (event, id, content, metadatos), and the return value. It omits minor details like authentication requirements or idempotency, but the core behavior is fully transparent.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence and contains no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the trigger, parameters, payload, and return value, so an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains pattern as 'Texto a buscar en contenido o metadatos del recuerdo' and clearly defines webhook_url as the URL that receives a POST with specific fields. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Registra un webhook' for memories whose content or metadata match a pattern. It specifies the triggering events (created/modified/deleted), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_watch_dir or unwatch_hipocampo.

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?

The description implies when the tool is appropriate: to receive webhook notifications about memory changes matching a pattern. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it, such as when directory watching via add_watch_dir would be more suitable.

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