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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, non-destructive read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by ruling out the signing secret ('never returned here') and explaining it is exposed only at creation or rotation, which steers the agent away from a futile fetch.

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 tight sentences with the scope of the read front-loaded and the secret caveat immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return surface, and it does name the returned fields while explicitly excluding the secret. It stops short of covering error conditions or what 'active revision' means if no revision is active.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the semantics of endpoint_key. The description adds nothing about the key's format or provenance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read a webhook endpoint's active revision') and even enumerates the returned fields (name and URL), which is sharper than a bare 'get'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_webhook_endpoint_revision or list_webhook_endpoints, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool reads the current/active configuration of an endpoint. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_webhook_endpoint_revision, list_webhook_endpoints, or save_webhook_endpoint, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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