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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that inactive revisions are also retrievable, which is context beyond the annotations. It does not explain the unusual idempotentHint=false for a read operation or what a revision object contains.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The key qualifier ('active or not') appears immediately after the core action.

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 two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Only the return shape is unspecified, which is minor given it is a straightforward entity fetch with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry descriptions, including a cross-reference for the revision number, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about endpoint_key or revision format.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one webhook endpoint revision'), and 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling list_webhook_endpoint_revisions. It does not explicitly name siblings or contrast with get_webhook_endpoint, but the scope is unambiguous.

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: 'active or not' signals it works on any revision state, and the revision parameter description points to list_webhook_endpoint_revisions for obtaining the revision number. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative in the description itself.

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