Standing Intents (webhook push)

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

The description itself is rich, disclosing HMAC signatures, saving the secret, watermark initialization, delivery failure auto-disable, and ~2h evaluation cadence. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, while the description documents register/delete actions and stateful webhook behavior, which are mutating and not idempotent. This is a direct annotation contradiction, so the score is 1.

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?

Although long, the description is dense and well structured: it opens with the core value proposition, explains mechanism and required security behavior, provides a runnable example, and ends with exclusions. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the most important operational constraints are front-loaded.

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 complex 7-parameter tool, the description covers the full lifecycle: how to register, what is returned, how deliveries are signed, failure behavior, evaluation frequency, and when not to use it. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return structure, and the description still covers the critical return fields and side effects.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema: it explains action defaults, maps each kind to its relevant watch parameter, enforces public HTTPS only, and warns that register returns {intent_id, secret}. This goes beyond simple restatement of param names.

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 identifies a specific resource and action: registering standing intents that trigger HMAC-signed webhook pushes when matches grow, explicitly contrasting this with polling. It also names the sibling alternatives it is not (get_news, list_transactions, set_market_alert), so an agent can distinguish it from related tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: machine-to-machine push notifications for standing queries, with a concrete example invocation. It also states exclusions, directing agents to get_news/list_transactions for one-shot reads and set_market_alert for email alerts, making the decision boundary clear.

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