Test Webhook

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description adds genuinely new behavior: delivery is asynchronous with a typical latency ('usually within a minute') and the ACTIVE-endpoint requirement. It stops short of saying what a failed delivery looks like, but the added context is substantive.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its purpose, then the precondition and the async timing/verification detail. No 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining that delivery is async and pointing to get_webhook / last_success_date for verification. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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% for the single `id` parameter, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Send a `webhook.test` event to an endpoint') plus the two goals it verifies: reachability and signature verification. An agent can distinguish this from resend_webhook or sandbox_trigger_webhook without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a precondition ('The endpoint must be ACTIVE') and a follow-up path (verify via get_webhook's last_success_date). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over resend_webhook or the sandbox equivalent, but the context is clear enough to act on.

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