validate_signature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about what happens during validation - whether it returns a simple boolean, detailed validation results, error messages, or what happens on failure. For a security-critical validation tool, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration or redundant information.

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 validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes successful validation, what format the result takes, or how this tool integrates with the payment/subscription operations that dominate the sibling tools. The agent would be left guessing about the tool's behavior and integration context.

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, with both parameters clearly documented as 'Webhook payload JSON' and 'Signature from header'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, such as format requirements, encoding specifics, or examples of valid signatures. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('validate') and the target ('a webhook signature'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (which are all payment/subscription related), leaving some ambiguity about why this validation tool exists in this particular server context.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools are all payment/subscription operations, there's no indication whether this validation is a prerequisite for those operations, a standalone security check, or something else entirely. No exclusions or contextual recommendations are provided.

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