Verify webhook signature

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only'. The description adds context about the configured IPN secret, but it does not disclose the output format, whether verification failures are errors or just false results, or any other behavioral details.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the most important trait ('Read-only') and conveys the tool's exact purpose without filler. Every word adds value.

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 simple two-parameter verification tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description covers the core use case. However, with no output schema, the lack of any statement about the return value or how to interpret verification results leaves an agent guessing about the outcome of the call.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'signature' and the IPN secret, but it does not explain that 'payload' is the webhook body, how the signature should be formatted, or how the two relate in the verification process.

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 ('verify'), a clear resource ('ZEN IPN webhook signature'), and explicitly marks the operation as read-only. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are payment, transaction, and reporting operations.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a ZEN IPN webhook signature needs to be verified. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to perform a similar function, so the routing is unambiguous.

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