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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the HTTP endpoint, the four trigger shapes, and the relationship to sugar tools, adding meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not mention response format, error handling, or authentication, so it is not fully transparent.

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 compact yet highly informative. Each sentence contributes: stating the canonical purpose, explaining usage versus sugar tools, and enumerating trigger shapes. It is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 an 8-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the core complexity (trigger shapes) and provides clear usage context. It does not explain the response format, but the schema handles parameter meanings and the description addresses the main decision of when to use it.

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%, providing descriptions for all 8 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by detailing the 'trigger' object shapes (scan, ticker, signal, event) with their fields, which the schema only refers to as 'see the tool description for each shape.'

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 the tool is 'The canonical webhook create — POST /v2/webhooks with an explicit trigger object', clearly indicating it creates a webhook. It also distinguishes itself from sibling subscribe tools by calling them 'flat sugar' and positioning this as the canonical form.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'The subscribe tools above are flat sugar over exactly this; use this form when composing the trigger programmatically or when a sugar door doesn't fit.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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