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

Annotations already flag non-readonly, open-world, and non-idempotent behavior; the description adds that the factory will send POST events and names the event types. It does not cover retries, duplicates, or subscription lifecycle, but these are secondary given the annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences with front-loaded action and resource, a compact list of event types, and a closing purpose statement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present and only three simple parameters, the description covers the essential call: what events to subscribe to and where the webhook is delivered. It is slightly incomplete on agent_id semantics and subscription lifecycle, but sufficient for a basic correct invocation.

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 description clarifies webhook_url (HTTPS POST endpoint) and event_types (price_change, new_birzha_order, stock_update) beyond the schema. However, agent_id is neither described in the schema nor in the description, and schema coverage is only 67%, leaving a real gap.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Подписать ИИ-агента на webhook-события завода' (subscribe an AI agent to factory webhook events), and enumerates the three event types. This clearly differentiates it from sibling read tools like get_birzha_orders and search_machines.

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?

It states the intended usage context: the agent uses this so factory data stays current ('Так агент держит данные завода актуальными'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the push-vs-poll context is clear.

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