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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that only a masked identifier is returned, so an agent knows it cannot retrieve the full secret through this tool. This prevents a false expectation and is not redundant with the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb leads, the object is precise, and the output constraint (masked identifier) is included. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing. The masked-output disclosure covers the only meaningful behavioral nuance. The meaning of 'legacy' could be elaborated, but that is minor against an otherwise complete definition.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies and the description has no parameter burden to carry. No compensation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') tied to a concrete resource ('legacy webhook signing secret') and states the exact output scope: existence plus a masked identifier. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling auraspay_webhooks_list (which lists webhooks) and from the payment/account tools. Nothing is vague or tautological.

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?

The purpose is self-evident enough that an agent can infer when to call it — to check whether a legacy webhook secret exists — versus the sibling webhooks_list. It provides clear context but stops short of explicit when/when-not exclusions or named alternatives, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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