preview_event_payload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important non-obvious behavior: the payload is sample data, IDs refer to nothing, users should not report or look up those IDs, and a separate CSA_SKILLJAR_V1_API_KEY credential is required. This goes meaningfully beyond what annotations provide.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of value: parameter meaning, use cases, fake-data warning, credential requirement, and tool-design rationale. The 'One tool rather than ten' sentence is slightly tangential but still helps the agent understand why this tool exists.

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 one-parameter read-only preview tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the parameter, states use cases, warns about sample data, and discloses the credential requirement. The main gap is that it names only two of the ten possible event_type values, though the examples and reference to list_webhooks partially mitigate this.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: event_type is the value a webhook carries, with concrete examples (COURSE_COMPLETION, PURCHASE_FULFILLMENT), and it states there are ten supported types. It stops short of enumerating all ten values, which would make it a 5, but it gives enough semantic grounding for most agents.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Show an EXAMPLE payload for one webhook event type.' It also distinguishes this from related siblings like list_webhooks by clarifying that it previews payloads rather than managing subscriptions or webhook configuration.

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 gives explicit use cases: answering 'what fields will I get' before writing a receiver, and checking whether an event carries needed data. It also clarifies that subscription status is irrelevant ('works for all ten whether or not anything is listening') and points to list_webhooks for subscription context. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when' statement, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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