Live Source Webhook Validation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the 'validation handshake' context, clarifying this is a verification step rather than a data operation. It does not contradict annotations, but adds limited detail beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the tool's function in a compact and efficient manner.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose, but it lacks context about how this relates to sibling webhook tools and what the handshake involves. It could be improved by noting when this is called or how it differs from the POST counterpart.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain; the schema and lack of inputs are sufficient.

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 states a specific action ('validation handshake') and resource ('webhook subscription'), clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from the sibling 'lyzr_livesource_ext_webhook_post' by implying a setup/verification role, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'lyzr_livesource_ext_webhook_post' or 'lyzr_kb_sync_webhook_validation'. It lacks context about prerequisites, invocation order, or typical scenarios.

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