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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful detail that 'the returned secret signs deliveries,' which is important for understanding how delivered payloads are authenticated. However, it does not disclose whether registering a new webhook replaces an existing one, whether multiple webhooks are allowed, or what delivery/retry behavior to expect.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and the most important behavioral detail are both front-loaded, and 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 explains the core registration action and mentions the signing secret, which is the key return value. However, there is no output schema to fill in response details, and the description leaves the events subscription behavior and handling of existing registrations unexplained. It is adequate for a simple tool but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only minimally echoes the 'url' concept and says nothing about the 'events' parameter. An agent gets no guidance from the description about the meaning or default behavior of the optional events array.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register'), a clear resource ('a webhook URL'), and a clear purpose ('to receive push events'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_webhooks, which is about reading webhooks rather than creating one.

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 phrase 'to receive push events' gives a clear context for when the tool should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is obvious and distinct from the sibling list_webhooks.

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