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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavior: the workspace-level plan_required refusal, the inclusion of disabled reason, and the crucial fact that the signing secret is never returned. These are meaningful operational details an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 critical workspace limitation is front-loaded in brackets, followed by two focused sentences covering return content and secret handling. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the response shape. It still covers the key caveats an agent needs—plan refusal, disabled reason, and secret exclusion—making the definition complete for this read-only tool.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 and resource: 'Show the currently configured inbound webhook,' and clarifies what is returned (enabled status, disabled reason). It is clearly distinct from sibling mutators like wa_set_webhook, wa_delete_webhook, and wa_enable_webhook.

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 explicitly states the tool is not usable in this workspace and that calling it returns a plan_required refusal, then routes the agent to wa_get_plan as the alternative. This is unambiguous when-not-to-use guidance with a named sibling.

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