Register Retrograde-End Webhook

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

The description provides the trigger but no details about the webhook's behavior: what data is sent in the payload, how often it fires, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. Annotations are minimal (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and do not cover behavioral aspects. The example request body is for registration, not the event itself. This leaves significant gaps.

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 (two sentences plus an example), which is concise. It front-loads the trigger condition. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. The example is helpful but not fully explained.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter), the description is incomplete. It omits details about the webhook event payload, how to unsubscribe, rate limits, or any behavioral aspects beyond the trigger. This lack of completeness could lead to misusage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the url parameter. It only shows an example request body without stating that the parameter is the webhook callback URL. The meaning is inferable but not explicitly described, providing minimal additional value over the schema.

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 clearly states that the webhook fires when any planet from Mercury to Pluto stations direct (ends retrograde). This straightforwarrow explanation, combined with the tool name and title, leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling webhooks_retrograde_start.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this webhook versus alternatives like webhooks_retrograde_start. The usage is implied by the trigger condition, but there is no guidance on context or exclusions. A score of 3 reflects the implicit clarity without explicit guidelines.

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