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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the rate limit, public-address restriction, HMAC signing header format, and that the secret is returned only once. These are important operational details for an agent configuring alert delivery.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the operational constraints that matter. No sentence is filler.

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 the simple one-parameter schema, present output schema, and annotations, the description covers the important behavioral context: rate limiting, signature verification, secret handling, and URL restrictions. An agent has enough 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 coverage is 100%, so the URL parameter is already documented. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema, especially that only public HTTPS addresses are accepted, though it does not explain replacement behavior for an existing webhook.

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 action and resource: posting this key's fired alerts to an HTTPS URL. It implicitly distinguishes push delivery from the sibling polling tool hl_poll_alerts and clearly connects to webhook management siblings.

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 gives useful scope and constraints (public HTTPS only, 30 per hour) but does not explicitly say when to choose this over polling alerts or how it relates to hl_delete_webhook. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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