Готовность панели к вебхукам

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that no bot is required and that it returns a public address plus conditions, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or response format beyond that.

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 short sentences with no waste, front-loading the main resource and immediately clarifying the bot-not-required condition.

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 simple, read-only info tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is sufficient: it explains what is returned and that no bot is needed. It could be slightly more complete by stating the read-only nature explicitly, but the annotations already cover that.

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% and the single optional 'case' parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail; 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 names the returned resource ('public address of the panel and conditions for enabling webhook mode') and adds a clarifying constraint ('bot not required'), making the tool's output clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings like bots_webhook_check or bots_webhook_rotate.

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?

Usage is implied: checking conditions before enabling webhook mode and the note that no bot is required hint at when the tool is relevant. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as bots_webhook_check.

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