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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the https/public-address URL requirement, the signing scheme (dw-signature, same as shop webhooks), and that the signing secret is returned only once. It omits rate limits or delivery/retry behavior, but the key invocation constraints are covered.

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 front-loaded sentences with no waste: purpose and events first, then the url constraint and signing behavior. 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description usefully notes the signing secret is returned once. Combined with the url/event/signing details, it is nearly complete for a 2-param creation tool; only retry or secret-rotation behavior is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the four event values (matching the enum) and explains the url must be https on a public internet address, which the schema's minLength/maxLength constraints do not convey.

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 states a specific verb (Add a webhook) and resource (homeowner request events), and enumerates the exact events it covers. This makes it clearly distinguishable from homeowner_webhookList/Delete and the generic shop webhooks_create without opening a schema.

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 stated goal ('so your own assistant hears about your requests') implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g., when to use homeowner_webhookList first, or why not webhooks_create). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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