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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the URL security constraint (https, public address) and the one-time secret return that is 'never shown again' — a genuinely important behavioral trait. It omits whether creation triggers a verification/test delivery and what happens on duplicate or invalid endpoints.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the constraint, then the return-value warning. Zero waste and 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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly spends a sentence on the one-time signing secret, which is exactly the right call. However, for a 3-parameter creation tool it leaves the `events` parameter and duplicate/verification semantics unexplained, so an agent still has meaningful gaps.

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 fully. It adds real meaning for `url` (must be https on a public address) but says nothing about the `events` array, which is the parameter that determines which events fire, and only implicitly covers `shop_id` via 'for a shop'.

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 and resource: 'Add a webhook endpoint for a shop'. The scoping to a shop-level webhook implicitly distinguishes it from homeowner_webhookCreate, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the difference from scope alone.

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?

Names the permitted callers ('owner or office, or their agent'), which is useful permission context, but gives no guidance on when to create a new webhook versus reusing one found via webhooks_list, or how it relates to homeowner_webhookCreate. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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