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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/open-world profile, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call returns a whsec_* signing secret that must be stored to verify payloads. It does not address what happens on duplicate registration of the same URL or whether the endpoint is verified before activation, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 action and event scope, then the important return-value caveat, then the wildcard shortcut. No filler and no repetition of schema text beyond what is needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still flags the signing secret — a genuinely useful addition for a write tool. The main remaining gap is duplicate-registration behavior, which the non-idempotent annotation hints at but the description never confirms.

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 url, events, and description thoroughly; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only a little beyond that by repeating the wildcard behavior and naming one additional event type (formation.created) not spelled out in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Register a webhook URL') plus the concrete event families it delivers (formation.created, formation.status_changed, formation.complete), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with offshoreproz_list_webhooks or any cleanup sibling, so sibling differentiation is left to the verb rather than stated.

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 'to receive real-time formation events,' and the note about '*' covers one subscription choice. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer webhooks over polling via offshoreproz_get_formation_events, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use case.

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