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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses key behaviors: test delivery before saving, saving nothing on failure, the one-time presentation of a secret, and the exact signature verification process (x-swarm0x-sig as sha256=hex(hmac_sha256(secret, body))). These details add significant value beyond the hint annotations.

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, front-loading the purpose and then adding necessary behavioral details. It includes technical verification details that are essential given no output schema, but remains reasonably compact. Each sentence contributes distinct information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the response's key element (the one-time secret) and failure behavior. It also provides a prerequisite (key) with a link. Missing details like full response format or error cases are minor given the tool's simplicity and the annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the `url` parameter with constraints (https, answers 2xx to POST). The description does not add further parameter-specific semantics; it mentions the URL receives JSON but does not elaborate on URL formatting or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Sends every alert for this mite to an https url as json'. It enumerates the payload fields and distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on webhook delivery, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 some usage context, such as 'The nest makes one test delivery first and saves nothing if it fails' and 'Needs a key' with a docs link. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternative notification methods or exclude any scenarios, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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