verify_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals timing-safe comparison, replay-window protection, exact return values, and a critical ordering constraint. It stops short of a 5 by not addressing exception behavior or provider-specific edge cases.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and return contract, the second states a vital operational warning. The most important guidance is front-loaded.

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 with 8 parameters, a provider enum, and no output schema, the description covers the core verification contract and return values. Provider-specific parameter requirements are left to the schema, which documents them well. It is slightly light on provider-specific behavioral combinations, hence not a 5.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds little new parameter-level detail beyond tying timestamp/tolerance to replay protection, which the schema already mentions. This meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 specific verb and resource: verifying a webhook signature with timing-safe comparison and replay protection. It also precisely defines the outcome (valid:true or exact failure reasons), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 operational context: use this before parsing or acting on a webhook body, and replay protection applies when the provider signs a timestamp. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but with no sibling tools, the guidance is sufficient.

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