verify_webhook_signature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool operates 'Locally' and 'verify' implies no side effects, and it details the required inputs and return value. It does not mention potential error conditions or edge cases (e.g., malformed secret), but the core behavior is transparent enough for safe invocation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the key differentiator ('no API call'). It enumerates the required inputs and return value without any wasted words. 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it states the local nature, lists the inputs, and describes the return shape. It does not explain edge cases like timestamp tolerance, but that parameter is fully documented in the schema. The combination is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the parameters in a readable summary ('exact raw request body, the svix-id/svix-timestamp/svix-signature headers, and your endpoint signing secret') but does not add meaning beyond the schema. It is accurate and helpful, but not additive.

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 action ('Locally verify') with a clear resource ('a webhook delivery's Svix-style signature') and explicitly distinguishes itself from API calls ('no API call'). It also names the key inputs (headers, secret) and return shape, making it easy to differentiate from sibling webhook management tools like test_webhook or rotate_webhook_secret.

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 clearly signals when to use this tool: for local signature verification without making an API call. It implicitly excludes API-based verification routes, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The 'no API call' phrase gives strong contextual guidance, though explicit alternatives would make it a 5.

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