Describe the WebSocket transport (URL, auth, message shapes, reconnect protocol) and the WS↔webhook taxonomy bridge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the payload is protocol documentation (auth schemes, reconnect/replay behavior) which is meaningful context, but it does not disclose return format, size, or how the wallet-scoped channel differs operationally.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the primary content (transport) before the secondary topics (bridge, channels, fallback). No filler, though the enumerated list is packed enough to border on a table of contents.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and with no input parameters the description need only frame what the documentation covers. It does that adequately, though it omits guidance on when this discovery call is the right one to make.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 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?

The description states a specific verb ("Describe") and enumerates the exact subject matter: WebSocket transport details (URL, auth, message shapes, reconnect/replay), the WS↔webhook taxonomy bridge, auto-delivered channels, and webhooks as fallback. An agent can tell it is a documentation/transport-description tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely overlapping sibling problee_discover_webhooks, nor reconcile with the name problee_discover_events.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. Given siblings like problee_discover_webhooks and problee_list_webhook_event_types that cover adjacent territory, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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