parse_webhook_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output behavior ('Returns structured data...'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the tool verifies the webhook signature or validates the event, whether it can throw on malformed input, or if it assumes a prior verification step. This is a meaningful gap given the verify_webhook sibling.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately states the return value. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple parse operation but has clear gaps. It does not mention which webhook event types are supported, how to handle invalid bodies, or the relationship to verify_webhook. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'structured data' entails, though it does list the key fields.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter webhookBody, explaining it as 'The complete webhook request body'. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter format, expected event types, or timestamp handling. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the weight.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Parse and extract information') and resource ('webhook event'), and summarizes the return value (structured transaction data with user, amount, network, status). It is easy to understand what this tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling verify_webhook, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes verify_webhook, which is highly relevant for webhook handling, but the description does not note whether parsing should occur before or after verification, or that verify_webhook should be used for authenticity checks. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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