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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by stating that secrets are never shown, which is relevant security/privacy information for webhook settings.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates its contents without wasting words.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description provides a useful summary of what settings are returned and notes that secrets are excluded. It could be more complete by clarifying the return structure or authentication behavior, but it covers the core content an agent needs.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the fully documented schema.

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 identifies the resource as the webhook inbox pro settings and lists the specific settings returned: upgraded inbox, forwarding with counts, signature preset, and handshakes. It is distinguishable from inbox_pro_set because it is framed as showing settings rather than setting them, though the description itself does not explicitly state a retrieval verb.

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 implies the tool is used to view settings but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives such as inbox_pro_set, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart from the title and sibling names.

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