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

The annotations only indicate that the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: auth/plan failure (403), HTTPS requirement, and the critical one-time secret retrieval behavior with rotation via update_webhook. This goes well beyond what the structured fields 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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: endpoint/scope/plan, HTTPS constraint, one-time secret warning, rotation path, and docs pointer. The most important operational risk (secret can't be read again) is explicitly called out without fluff.

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 still tells the agent what matters in the response (the secret, exactly once), the prerequisites for a successful call, and where to learn the signature scheme. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and handle the most consequential behavior 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 schema already documents url, name, and events in detail. The description adds the public-HTTPS requirement and secret response behavior, but it does not materially extend the meaning of the parameters themselves 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Create an outbound webhook') and adds the endpoint (POST /tenant-webhooks), the payload direction (Ray POSTs signed event payloads), and the scope/plan requirement. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_webhook, delete_webhook, and get_webhook.

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 states clear conditions for use: write scope, Pro plan or higher, public HTTPS URL. It also tells the agent that the secret is only shown once and that update_webhook is the rotation path, which is a concrete alternative. It doesn't exhaustively list when not to use it, but the constraints are enough for selection.

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