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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the trigger condition, the optional scoping, and the delivery options. It does not mention side effects like overwriting existing webhooks or authentication requirements, but for a subscription creation tool the described behavior is fairly 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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first states the core trigger behavior, second clarifies the ticker scoping, third explains delivery channel options. No wasted words, and the structure naturally front-loads the essential action.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main decision points: condition type, scope, and delivery. It omits cadence (though documented in schema) and does not describe return values, but the description is sufficient for an agent to correctly configure the subscription for most use cases.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds value by explaining the interplay: booleans vs numerics for condition, ticker restriction vs full universe, and the target_url/discord_url/in-app channel logic. This enriches the schema-level definitions without redundancy.

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's core function: 'Register a webhook that fires when a signal turns true (booleans) or its value crosses a condition (numerics).' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like tickerbot_subscribe_ticker and tickerbot_subscribe_scan by focusing on signal-based triggers rather than raw ticker or scan data.

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 provides practical usage context: optional ticker restriction, delivery channel choices, and the boolean vs numeric distinction. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the inclusion of 'omit to watch the whole universe' and channel selection gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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