Register Eclipse-Alert Webhook

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world write), the description adds genuinely useful operational facts: the delivery lead time (7 days before), the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint. It stops short of saying what happens on repeat calls given idempotentHint=false, or whether the receiver URL must be verified.

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 one-sentence purpose followed by scannable bracketed metadata. The '[Required: url]' line is pure repetition of the schema, but the total footprint is small and efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and cost/endpoint/lead time are covered. Still, for a non-idempotent webhook registration with an undocumented lone parameter, the definition should say whether repeated calls create duplicate subscriptions and how the lead time can be changed.

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 only parameter, url, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does no more than restate that it is required — which duplicates the schema's required array. It never clarifies that this is the subscriber's receiver endpoint, whether HTTPS is mandatory, or whether a secret accompanies delivery.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Subscribe to upcoming eclipse alerts' with an endpoint. An agent can tell this creates an eclipse-specific webhook rather than a generic one, though the sibling astroway_webhooks_subscribe (generic subscribe) is never named or contrasted.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'default 7 days before' note, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus astroway_webhooks_subscribe, astroway_stream_eclipse_incoming or astroway_stream_eclipse_totality, and no stated prerequisites for registering a webhook.

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