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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that Solentic polls every 60 seconds and POSTs to the provided URL when events fire. This adds meaningful behavioral detail about delivery mechanism and polling interval. It also explains the meaning of each event, giving context not present in annotations. No contradiction with 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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a compact list of events with explanations, and ends with the delivery mechanism. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, event triggers, and polling delivery behavior, which is adequate for a registration tool with good schema and annotations. It lacks explicit return-value or error-handling information, but no output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, so this is a minor gap.

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 schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, providing a good baseline. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining when each event fires (e.g., 'withdraw_ready (stake account becomes withdrawable)'), which is not fully captured in the schema's generic 'Event types to subscribe to'. It also reinforces the url/callbackUrl alias.

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 'Register a callback URL to receive push notifications when stake state changes', which specifies the action (register), resource (callback URL/webhook), and purpose (push notifications for stake state changes). The event list further clarifies the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_webhook and list_webhooks.

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 clear context: use this when you need to receive push notifications for stake state changes. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, the sibling tools (delete_webhook, list_webhooks) make the intended use obvious, and no prerequisites or exclusions are needed.

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