Consultar webhook de pagamentos de contas

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it doesn't modify delivery, aligning with annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, error handling). With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, so 3 is adequate.

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 main purpose, followed by usage guidance. No unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown but flagged as present), so return values are covered elsewhere. Annotations provide behavioral hints. The description gives a clear purpose and usage guideline, and parameters are in schema. It is complete enough for an agent to use, though it doesn't mention any prerequisites or limitations. Thus 4.

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 100%, and the schema already describes the two parameters (dataInicio, dataFim) with dates. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is for consulting the webhook configuration used in payment notifications. The verb 'Consulta' and resource 'configuração de webhook' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'account_list_webhook', the focus on payments is clear. A 5 would require explicit differentiation, but 4 is appropriate.

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 says 'Use para confirmar o destino dos callbacks sem modificar sua entrega,' providing guidance on when to use (to confirm) and implying it's read-only. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context of siblings (config, delete webhooks) makes it clear. A 5 would require explicit alternatives, but 4 is fair.

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