Register Planetary-Hour-Tick Webhook

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new facts — the 24/day firing cadence and the 10-credit (Tier 1) cost — but says nothing about what registration produces or how duplicate subscriptions behave, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 trigger sentence followed by compact bracketed metadata; every line carries a fact (group, endpoint, required field, cost). The bracketed syntax is terse but readable, with no filler prose.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and cost/cadence are covered. But for a webhook-creation write tool it omits delivery semantics (payload contents, retry behavior, how a subscription is later removed) and whether authentication is required, leaving real gaps an agent would need.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only restates that url is required without adding constraints (HTTPS-only, reachability, payload shape delivered to the callback). The 'format: uri' and 2048-char cap in the schema are the only substantive hints.

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 names the exact event and cadence ('fires at every planetary hour boundary (24/day)') and pins the operation via '[Endpoint: POST /v1/webhooks/planetary-hour-tick]', so an agent can tell this creates a webhook subscription rather than returning data. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent tools like astroway_stream_planetary_hour_changes or astroway_calendar_planetary_hours.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing explains why an agent would register this webhook versus polling astroway_calendar_planetary_hours or using the streaming sibling. The only procedural hint is '[Required: url]', which is not usage guidance.

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