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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint. The description adds real behavioral context: the request must be signed with the company's e-CNPJ, that passing url "-" removes the webhook, and the full set of events delivered. It stops short of stating auth/permission failure modes or response behavior, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotations.

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 tight clauses with no filler; the cost/scope qualifier and the core action are front-loaded, and the removal semantics are packed into the final clause. Efficient, though the event enumeration is slightly dense.

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 setter with no output schema, the description covers what is set, who may set it, how the request is authenticated, what events flow, and how to clear the setting. Nothing critical is missing, though failure/error behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cnpj, signed_text, and ecnpj_signature. The description adds one genuinely new data point — that url "-" removes the webhook — but otherwise restates the e-CNPJ signing requirement already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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: 'Sets the https URL that receives signed events about your agents', and enumerates the exact event types (credential issued, renewed, suspended, reinstated, revoked). An agent immediately knows this configures a company webhook endpoint, distinct from one-shot operations like kya_prove or kya_revoke.

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?

'Free, company only.' gives two usage constraints (cost, applicable entity) but never states when to call this versus alternatives or prerequisites beyond the signing requirement. Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed; there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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