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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it lists the returned status fields and explicitly states that the webhook secret is never returned.

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?

The description is short and largely front-loaded with the auth requirement followed by the returned fields. Every sentence carries useful information, though the first sentence is a fragment and could more precisely reflect the optional auth handling.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description gives enough detail to know what is returned and what is never returned. It omits specifics such as what 'recent' means, but the overall completeness is adequate given the annotations and simple 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single optional api_key parameter. The description adds where the key comes from (register_agent), but its wording 'Needs your api_key' slightly conflicts with the schema's optional-if-Authorization-header-present framing.

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 clearly identifies the resource and the returned information: webhook URL, state, recent deliveries, and failures. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and does not directly distinguish itself from siblings such as test_webhook or set_webhook, but the purpose is still easy to infer.

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?

It gives an auth prerequisite by saying the api_key is needed and points to register_agent. However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of set_webhook, clear_webhook, or test_webhook, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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