Что платформа знает о вебхуке

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description goes further by stating that no token or key is ever exposed from the address and that the output states whether the address matches the panel's expectation. This adds safety and interpretation context beyond the 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?

Three sentences, each meaningful: report contents, diagnostic use-case, and privacy caveat. Key information is front-loaded in the first sentence. No filler or repetition.

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 simple diagnostic tool with two documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers all relevant expectations: what the report contains, what insight it provides, and the security guarantee about secrets. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%: both bot and case are described in the schema, including the default fallback for case. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 concrete resource ('Отчёт самой платформы') and specifies the exact outputs: delivery address, count of pending updates, and last delivery error. This clearly distinguishes bots_webhook_check from action-oriented siblings like bots_webhook_rotate.

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 gives an explicit trigger scenario: use when a webhook-mode bot is silent but the panel side looks healthy ('Единственный способ понять...'). It does not, however, spell out when not to use it or name alternative diagnostic tools.

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