Проверить подпись вебхука

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses the algorithm, the critical raw-body requirement, the failure outcome if JSON is re-serialized, and the automatic fetching of the public key. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler. The essential information is front-loaded: purpose first, then the single most important pitfall, then the optional-parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 self-contained enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, covering purpose, algorithm, parameter behavior, and failure mode. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explicitly state the return format or how success/failure is reported, which would have made it fully complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds real semantic value: it explains that rawBody must be the byte-for-byte network string alia, that signature maps to the X-Signature header, and that publicKeyPem is optional because the key is auto-retrieved. This materially improves correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it verifies the authenticity of a WATA notification by validating the X-Signature header with SHA512withRSA. This clearly distinguishes the tool from unrelated sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 gives clear invocation context: use this to verify an incoming webhook notification, and explicitly instructs callers to pass the raw request body exactly as received. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the raw-body caveat and automatic-key behavior provide practical usage guidance.

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