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

Beyond the annotations (which only give the safety profile: not read-only, not destructive), the description discloses meaningful behavior: the request is 'signed and with its headers', the attempt is written to the event log, and critically that nothing is persisted as a submission. It stops short of noting auth/permission requirements or retry behavior.

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 sentences: purpose and side-effect semantics first, then the return shape. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact ('Nothing is stored as a submission') is front-loaded.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, the non-effect (no stored submission), and the returned shape including optional error fields. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% and the single webhookId parameter is fully documented in the schema (including where to source it), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Send an example submission event to a form webhook') and its scope, and the 'example submission'/'Nothing is stored as a submission' framing clearly separates it from real submission handling. An agent can distinguish it from the formWebhook_create/update/delete siblings without opening any schema.

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 is implied by the 'test' framing but never stated explicitly — there is no 'use this to verify a webhook is wired up correctly' guidance, nor any when-not condition or named alternative. The only routing help is indirect, via the webhookId schema pointing at formWebhook_list/create for obtaining IDs.

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