Публичный ключ для проверки вебхуков

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no authentication is needed and that keys differ between production and sandbox, selected via WATA_ENV. It also specifies the output format (PEM). However, it does not mention caching behavior even though the refresh parameter exists, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is transparent about the key traits.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the core function followed by a second sentence with critical context (auth and environment). No filler words, front-loaded with the main purpose. Efficient and to the point.

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 key-retrieval tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (public key in PEM), that auth is not needed, and the environment dependency. It could briefly mention its role in webhook verification, but given the sibling tools and simplicity, this is adequate.

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%: the only parameter 'refresh' is fully described in the schema ('Запросить заново, минуя кэш' – request again bypassing cache). The tool description adds no extra meaning for this parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No compensation needed.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Получает публичный RSA-ключ WATA в формате PEM' (Gets WATA's public RSA key in PEM format). It also clarifies that no authorization is required. This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like wata_webhook_verify (which would verify using the key) and wata_webhook_guide (a guide). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 useful context (auth not required, environment-specific keys) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this key is for verifying webhooks or that it should be fetched before calling wata_webhook_verify. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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