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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, yet the description still adds real value the schema can't: the signing secret is never returned and is only shown once at creation or rotation. This prevents an agent from hunting for credentials through this call. Oddly, idempotentHint=false on a read is left unexplained.

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, front-loaded with the read scope and then the security caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 single-param read with no output schema, the description covers the main return surface (name and URL) and the notable absence (secret). The 'name and URL' list reads as illustrative rather than exhaustive, leaving slight ambiguity about other returned fields, but nothing critical 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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format or sourcing detail for endpoint_key beyond what the schema states.

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?

Specific verb (read) and resource (webhook endpoint), with extra precision: 'active revision: name and URL'. That scoping implicitly separates it from get_webhook_endpoint_revision, but the sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 by 'active revision' — the description never says when to prefer this over get_webhook_endpoint_revision, list_webhook_endpoints, or test_webhook_endpoint. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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