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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the returned request parts, incremental polling via 'after', and a blocking wait of up to 20 seconds.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads purpose and return contents; the second efficiently explains the two optional parameters. The minor 'wait ... to wait' repetition does not undermine the conciseness.

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 simple read tool with 4 parameters, 2 required, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies all needed invocation context. Safety is covered by annotations, return shape by the output schema, and polling behavior by the description.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including 'after' and 'wait'. The description reinforces these semantics (newer requests, up to 20 seconds) but adds no format details, edge cases, or defaults beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb 'read' and resource 'requests your webhook URL received', and enumerates the returned fields (method, headers, query, body). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_link_stats or list_files, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage by explaining incremental retrieval with 'after' and long-polling with 'wait', but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus any alternative. Sibling tools are unrelated operations, so no clear alternative selection guidance is provided or needed.

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