Read the webhook signature guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the exact endpoint, the webhooks:read scope, OAuth scope luca:read, and that data sensitivity is redacted.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by terse operation/scope metadata lines. Nothing is redundant, though the stacked metadata lines read more like a spec dump than prose.

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 values need not be described, and the description covers endpoint, scopes, idempotency, and workspace override. It is essentially complete for a read-only guide tool, missing only explicit competitive framing against the other webhook tools.

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 coverage is 100% and both params are optional, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override 'the default workspace configured by environment', which the schema's 'Optional ... override' text does not fully convey.

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 and resource: describe Luca webhook HMAC verification, with the concrete operation GET /api/webhook-subscriptions/signature-guide. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like luca_webhooks_test_delivery or luca_webhooks_subscriptions_create, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

It gives operational context (required scopes, no idempotency requirement, workspace override) but never states when an agent should reach for this guide versus other webhook tools. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than spelled out.

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