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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value beyond those annotations by disclosing that the response excludes the webhook secret, which is a meaningful behavioral detail an agent should know before invoking the tool.

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 conveys the purpose and a key limitation with no wasted words. Every element earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 get-by-id tool with a full input schema, a complete output schema, and comprehensive read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the only additional caveat (no secret). Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool is 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%, so the 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description's 'by id' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Fetches one webhook endpoint by id') and resource, distinguishing it from list_webhooks (which lists many) and create/update/delete operations. The parenthetical 'no secret included' adds a useful, differentiating characteristic.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need a single webhook endpoint identified by id. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with list_webhooks for retrieving all endpoints or mention alternative tools for related operations, so the guidance is only 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.