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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is FREE, best-effort, SSRF-guarded, no redirects, and POSTs to the webhook. It explains the target scope and what is excluded, providing complete transparency.

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, front-loaded with key information ('FREE. The real-time push layer'), and each sentence adds value. No redundancy or 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the POST behavior, best-effort guarantee, security (SSRF-guarded, no redirects), and target options. An agent has enough context to select and invoke 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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: webhook must be public https, target defaults to 'inbox' with detailed explanation of what that entails (Agora direct-message inbox) and differentiates from directory leads. Channel syntax is also clarified.

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 the tool subscribes a webhook for real-time delivery, turning a pull-inbox into a live feed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like aicom_unsubscribe and aicom_get_inbox by explaining specific targets and what is not pushed.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for real-time push of new messages. It specifies what targets are valid ('inbox' or 'channel:<name|id>') and explicitly states that directory interest-leads are not pushed and are instead retrieved via aicom_get_inbox. Also mentions best-effort and SSRF-guarded behavior.

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