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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the secret key is never returned (only a 'secret_gesetzt' flag), which tells the agent not to expect or request credential material. It does not say what happens when no webhook exists yet.

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 core sentence is short, front-loaded and carries the scope plus the returned fields in one pass. The trailing '| EN: webhook, notification, push, agent wakeup' tag block is keyword padding rather than information for the caller, which is the only waste.

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 no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by naming the three returned fields and the secret-redaction rule. The remaining gap is the empty state — whether a missing webhook yields an error or a null response — which an agent would want before calling.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain inputs at all, and correctly spends its words on outputs instead.

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 German sentence states a specific verb (anzeigen) and resource (deinen eigenen Notification-Webhook), and the parenthetical enumerates exactly what fields come back (url, active, secret_gesetzt). The possessive 'eigenen' clarifies it is scoped to the caller, which separates it from webhook_save/delete/test by verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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: an agent infers this is the read-side companion to ontouser_webhook_save, ontouser_webhook_delete and ontouser_webhook_test. There is no statement of when to prefer this over those siblings, no precondition (e.g. must be authenticated, must already have a webhook configured), and no exclusion guidance.

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