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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds almost no behavior beyond that — no auth/permission requirements, no idempotency or duplicate-URL behavior, and no note that registration begins outbound POST traffic to the target URL. The API path (POST /management/webhooks) is the only extra detail and it is incidental.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The endpoint sentence is marginally useful for debugging but is not strictly 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?

For a 6-parameter (5 required) creation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it never says what is returned (e.g., a webhook ID) or what the caller should do next. The schema carries the input burden fully, so this is adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (including the useful 'empty array for all surveys' note on surveyIds). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Register a webhook") plus scope ("fires on survey events"), which cleanly separates it from list/get/delete webhook siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings or the alternatives explicitly, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to register a webhook versus using existing ones, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens if a webhook for the same URL already exists. The only contextual clue is the API endpoint path, which is not usage guidance.

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