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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it never returns the signing secret, it reports whether the webhook is enabled, and it provides the reason if disabled. This tells the agent exactly what to expect and what not to expect, which is especially valuable for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The primary function is front-loaded, and the privacy caveat is placed second where it can warn the agent before it relies on getting the secret. Every clause 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 readOnlyHint, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is returned, what is deliberately omitted, and how disabled state is presented. No additional information is needed to invoke or interpret this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the description correctly adds no parameter explanations. With 100% schema coverage and an empty input schema, there is nothing more an agent needs to know about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('currently configured inbound webhook'), then adds distinctive detail: it reports enabled state and disable reason, and explicitly notes the signing secret is excluded. This differentiates it from wa_set_webhook, wa_enable_webhook, and wa_delete_webhook without needing those names.

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 'currently configured' and the read-only framing make it clear this is for inspecting existing webhook state, not creating, enabling, or deleting. The signing-secret caveat also implies that if the agent needs the secret, it must use the creation flow instead. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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