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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the delivery mechanism, HMAC-SHA256 signing, the exact signature header format, and the fact that the secret is never echoed. The annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description does not contradict them. It could add what happens on duplicate registration, but the disclosed security and delivery details are strong.

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?

Three dense sentences cover purpose, payload format, signing, secret handling, usage guidance, and tenant semantics without waste. The core purpose and key integration details are 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains the event payload format by referencing list_disruption_events, covers signing verification, and clarifies tenant_id. The main gap is that it does not describe the registration response (e.g., whether a webhook ID is returned), but this is a minor omission for a tool whose activation behavior is otherwise clearly specified.

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 carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It does this well: url is the POST destination, secret is the HMAC signing key, and tenant_id is an optional namespace label used consistently with list_disruption_webhooks. Every parameter gains meaningful context beyond its bare type definition.

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 a specific verb ('register') and resource ('disruption webhook'), and explains what the webhook does: disruption events are POSTed to a URL as structured JSON. It distinguishes itself from polling and references list_disruption_webhooks, making it clear this is the creation counterpart to the listing and deletion siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use instead of polling when you want push delivery,' which tells the agent when to choose this tool over pulling from list_disruption_events. It also instructs that the same tenant_id should be passed to list_disruption_webhooks to see registered webhooks, providing a verification workflow.

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