Verificar una firma de webhook

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context by stating it uses the same formula as Hilo and points out the raw body requirement. This complements the annotation well without contradicting 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?

The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates purpose, usage context, and a common mistake without extraneous information.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenario and a typical error. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., true/false), which is a minor gap. Still, the context is largely sufficient.

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 already has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that rawBody must be 'exactly as received,' clarifying a nuance beyond the schema's wording. This justifies a score of 4.

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 the tool verifies webhook signatures using Hilo's formula. It distinguishes itself by explicitly mentioning its use for debugging rejected events, which sets it apart from sibling tools that handle different aspects of Hilo's API.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool: debugging when the handler rejects legitimate events. It also provides a common pitfall (re-serialized JSON instead of raw body), offering clear guidance on a typical mistake.

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