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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only health check but does not explicitly state side effects, required permissions, or response shape. 'Supported types' is vague and could refer to webhook types or event types.

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 very brief, which is concise, but it is a colon-separated fragment rather than a structured sentence. It lacks a verb and reads more like a label, so while it's short, it sacrifices clarity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns and what each metric means. It mentions three items but does not specify whether they are counts, booleans, or lists, nor does it clarify the 'supported types' field. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured schema to fall back on.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter usage. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no parameter information is missing.

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 identifies the resource (webhook health) and lists content areas (events processed, rules active, supported types), but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', making the action ambiguous. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools such as health_check or event_stats, though the 'webhook' scope provides some distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like health_check or event_stats. The description does not mention scenarios or exclusions, leaving selection entirely to the agent.

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