Send a signed webhook.test event to this endpoint only

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: the endpoint must be enabled (409 endpoint_disabled) and test sends are rate-limited per business (429 rate_limited with Retry-After). It stops short of saying whether a delivery record is created or whether the test event appears in delivery listings.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the scope constraint comes first, then the purpose, then error conditions. Minor waste from the opening sentence duplicating the title and being restated almost verbatim in the following sentence.

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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite state, and the two likely failure modes. The remaining gap is the response shape — whether it returns a delivery/event id or just success — which an agent would want before calling.

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 single `id` parameter has full schema description coverage including the `we_…` prefix format, so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces that the send is scoped to that one endpoint but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema; 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 and resource ("Send a signed `webhook.test` event") plus an explicit scope constraint ("to this endpoint only"), which separates it from siblings like replay_event and list_endpoint_deliveries. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 clear use case — verifying signature verification and connectivity — which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name an alternative (e.g., replay_event for re-sending real events), so the when-not-to-use side is left implicit.

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