Register Transit-Trigger Webhook

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It still adds real context that is not in structured fields: the concrete endpoint (POST /v1/webhooks/transit-trigger) and a billing cost (10 credits, Tier 1). It does not disclose whether the callback URL must be publicly reachable or verified, or whether a shared secret/signature is used.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence and the bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required param, cost) is scannable and waste-free. Slightly terse for a subscription-creating tool, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a webhook registration the description omits how the subscription is scoped or configured (which aspects/thresholds, which natal chart) given that only a URL is accepted, and it does not mention the counterpart for listing or removing subscriptions.

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 would need to compensate, and it only offers '[Required: url]', which merely restates the schema's required list. It leaves the agent to infer that url is the callback receiver rather than, say, a chart or subscription identifier, and says nothing about reachability, HTTPS, or auth expectations.

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 (subscribe) plus the exact event class it registers for (natal-transit aspect threshold-crossings), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling webhook tools (astroway_webhooks_subscribe, astroway_stream_transit_alerts, astroway_webhooks_webhooks), so an agent must infer the distinction from the event wording.

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 trigger event rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this only when it wants threshold-crossing notifications for natal transits. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the sibling subscribe/stream alternatives, and no note about how to unsubscribe afterwards.

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