Verify PhishFort Webhook Signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal context about using a local secret file but does not disclose verification logic, error handling, or implications of invalid signatures.

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 immediately conveys the action and key constraint. No redundant or extraneous words.

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 having 4 required parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It omits important context such as return value interpretation, error cases, and how to prepare the secret file, making it incomplete for reliable usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only hints at 'fresh' (timestamp relevance) and 'local secret file' (secret_file). It does not explain raw_body, signature format, or secret_file content, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 a fresh X-PhishFort-Signature using a local secret file. The verb 'verify' and resource 'signature' are specific, and the tool is distinct from all sibling tools which focus on CRUD operations on incidents, documents, users, and webhooks.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks guidance on context, such as after receiving a webhook event.

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