verify_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context about the RSA-SHA512 algorithm and public key, but it does not state what happens on success or failure, such as whether it returns a boolean or throws on an invalid signature.

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 focused sentences: the first identifies the action and resource, the second adds the verification algorithm and key source. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain verification outcomes or at least indicate the return/error behavior. It does not. The PLATFORM placeholder also leaves the webhook source unspecified, making the definition incomplete for an agent deciding how to handle the result.

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%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond the algorithm context, which is already reflected in the publicKey and signature semantics. 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 clear verb ('Verify'), a specific resource ('signature of a webhook event from PLATFORM'), and the cryptographic method ('RSA-SHA512'). This distinguishes it from sibling parse_webhook_event, which would parse rather than validate the event.

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?

The intended use is implied by the verb and resource, but the description gives no explicit 'use this when' or 'use parse_webhook_event instead' guidance. An agent must infer when verification is the right step among the sibling tools.

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