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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the side effect of creating a notification channel, details webhook authentication behavior (authType values, default header, query param appending), and provides concrete examples. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers usage and auth details with examples. Every sentence adds practical information, no fluff or redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with this level of configuration complexity.

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 tool that configures webhook auth, it covers prerequisites, method selection, detailed auth instructions with examples, and downstream alternatives. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since a successful add likely returns a simple confirmation; the description fully equips an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains how configJson is structured with real examples, clarifies how methodType relates to endpoint, and details each authType's wire-level behavior (e.g., 'basic' sends user:pass as Authorization: Basic header). This greatly improves schema-only understanding.

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 'Add a notification channel for task status events' with specific examples ('operator accepts, uploads proof, etc.'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting account-wide notifications with per-task events handled by 'dispatch_physical_task with webhookUrl'.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites ('Requires: API key from register_agent'), provides guidance on choosing methodType ('webhook' with URL, 'email' with address), and names alternatives ('Next: dispatch_physical_task... or use this for account-wide notifications'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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