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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the useful detail that event types are returned, but adds nothing about behavior when no webhook is configured or about disambiguation from the transcript webhook.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the resource, scope and returned content with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or misplaced.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description need not explain return values, and the lone parameter is fully documented in the schema. Minor gap: no statement of the relationship to set_webhook or what is returned when nothing is configured.

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% and the single business_id parameter already documents the optional-only-for-single-business condition, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries that load.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("configured outbound webhook(s) for a business") plus the payload detail ("including supported event types"). An agent can distinguish it from set_webhook/delete_webhook/request_transcript_webhook by the read/list framing, though the singular name "get_webhook" versus plural listing is a small inconsistency.

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?

Read/list usage is implied by the wording and reinforced by readOnlyHint, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus set_webhook or delete_webhook, nor when-not to call it. The alternative tools are left for the agent to infer from their names.

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