Register Eclipse-Alert Webhook

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that alerts are sent 'default 7 days before' an eclipse, which is not in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other important behaviors like idempotency, authentication requirements, or how to manage subscriptions. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) and are not contradicted, but the description only partially fills the transparency gap.

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 description is very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The example is helpful and the group label provides context. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool with one parameter, though it could include a bit more detail without losing efficiency.

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 simple webhook registration tool, the description covers the essential action and gives an example. However, it omits details like how to unsubscribe, confirmation behavior, or error handling. Given the tool has no output schema, some additional context would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides an example request body showing the expected URL format, but does not explain the parameter's purpose (e.g., 'the endpoint URL that will receive eclipse alert notifications') or any constraints like HTTPS requirement. The example helps but is insufficient for full understanding.

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?

Description clearly states 'Subscribe to upcoming eclipse alerts' with a default timing, and the title says 'Register Eclipse-Alert Webhook'. It identifies the specific resource (eclipse alerts) and action (subscribe/register). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling webhook tools like webhooks_subscribe or webhooks_dasha_change, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons with other webhook subscription tools. The description lacks any usage context beyond stating what it does.

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