Register Return-Due Webhook

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

Annotations already disclose the write, non-idempotent, open-world profile, so the extra burden is lower. The description usefully adds the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint. However it never states that repeated calls may create duplicate subscriptions, how a subscription is later removed, or that the 'N days' lead time is fixed server-side with no schema parameter to control it.

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 single sentence plus compact bracketed metadata; no filler. The one flaw is the undefined 'N days', a dangling placeholder that would be better stated as a concrete default.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and cost/endpoint/required fields are given. Still missing for a webhook-registration tool: payload shape delivered to the URL, lifecycle/management (how to list or delete), and the fixed vs configurable lead time that the 'N days' phrasing implies.

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 the burden, but it only restates '[Required: url]' which the schema's required array already encodes. It says nothing about what the URL is (callback receiver), its constraints (uri format, 2048 max length), or any verification behavior expected of the endpoint.

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's main verb describes the webhook's firing behavior ('Fires N days before a solar/lunar/planetary return is exact') rather than the tool's action, which the title and endpoint line reveal is registering a webhook. Combined with 'POST /v1/webhooks/return-due' an agent can infer registration, but the description alone muddles creation with the event. No differentiation from the many other webhook siblings (retrograde_start, sign_ingress, transit_trigger, etc.).

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?

No statement of when to choose this return-due webhook over the twelve other astroway_webhooks_* subscription tools, and no prerequisites (auth, verification handshake, one-per-user limits). The cost note is the only contextual cue. An agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.

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