justhandled_webhook_contract_replay_auditor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It usefully discloses the cost ($0.05 USDC on Base mainnet) and the specific checks performed, but it does not describe the output format, whether any mutations or side effects occur, or any authentication requirements. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and ends with the cost detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite the detailed audit scope, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. It lacks input semantics for the three required parameters, has no output schema, and provides no usage context or side-effect information. For a paid tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the three required parameters (observed_at, contracts, deliveries). It only hints at what the tool checks (e.g., payload fields, signature evidence) without mapping these to parameter meanings or structure. This adds little value beyond the minimal schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Audit' with a clear resource 'webhook deliveries' and enumerates a detailed set of audit dimensions (declared events, allowed versions, required payload fields, signature evidence, freshness, idempotency, replay). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like tool_call_contract_auditor or completion_evidence_receipt_auditor.

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 clearly states its purpose, making the when-to-use context obvious: when one needs to audit webhook deliveries against various contract requirements. However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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