Monitors and webhooks

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the billing model per scheduled check versus free create/list/delete, the baseline-only first check, and that the webhook secret is returned just once in the create response and must be stored by the user. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from the schema or hints.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact action inventory, then cost and lifecycle notes. Nearly every clause carries non-redundant information; nothing is padded.

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 seven-parameter, multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: cost, baseline behavior, and the one-time secret. It is slightly thin on how signatures are formed/verified and what the events and deliveries responses contain, which an agent may need when advising users.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description only loosely reinforces it ('params: that endpoint's parameters'). It adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: watch a list (profile posts, a search) and POST new items to a webhook. The enumerated action set (create, list, delete, test, deliveries, events, redeliver) makes the tool's scope unambiguous and clearly distinct from the per-platform sibling tools.

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?

Each action carries a short gloss ('test (send a signed test event)', 'deliveries (delivery log)'), which tells an agent which action to pick for a given goal. It does not, however, explain when to use polling monitors versus calling an endpoint directly, or any prerequisites before creating one.

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