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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the payload template is returned, which is modest extra context; it says nothing about errors for missing IDs or field-set behavior. Adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentence with the action and identifier requirement front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is perhaps too minimal to be considered exemplary structure.

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?

With full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema that carries return-value detail, the description needs only to identify the operation and its target. It does that, plus a note on payload template inclusion, leaving little an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with webhookId, fields and format all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that retrieval is by ID, adding no format or field-set detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (webhook definition) and scopes it to a single item via 'by ID', which implicitly separates it from the listing sibling glpi_list_webhooks. It also notes the payload template is included, adding a bit of content scope. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, so it falls 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?

The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for fetching one known webhook, which hints at usage, but the description never states when to use this versus glpi_list_webhooks or glpi_list_webhook_deliveries. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so guidance is only implied.

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