Verify a webhook signature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the verify action. It does not disclose whether the tool returns a boolean, throws on invalid signatures, or performs any side effects or network calls.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful provider coverage information compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description plus a fully covered schema is minimally sufficient for constructing a request. However, there is no output schema and no statement about the verification result or failure behavior, so an agent must infer what happens after calling the tool.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds provider examples that reinforce the provider parameter, but it does not provide deeper semantic value beyond what the schema already explains.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Verify a webhook signature against a secret') and adds provider examples, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like anyhook_inspect or anyhook_simulate, but none of those share the verify role.

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 provider list gives a clear condition for when the tool applies, and the core purpose implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer another anyhook tool or mention exclusions such as 'for simulating webhooks, use anyhook_simulate.'

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