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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the concrete return fields and the non-obvious behavior that a suspended webhook receives no deliveries until set_webhook is called again, which is real operational context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, with the suspension caveat second and the API reference last. No wasted prose, though the doc URL is mildly extraneous.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it adds the suspension semantics an agent needs for interpretation. For a single-param read tool with a clean safety annotation profile, nothing essential 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; 'for one of your workers' only loosely maps worker_id to a worker identifier and adds no format or sourcing guidance. The schema's own uuid format and regex pattern carry the actual constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (webhook settings for a worker) and enumerates exactly what comes back: URL, subscribed events, failure count, suspension state, last delivery status. That field list implicitly distinguishes it from get_webhook_deliveries and clear_webhook, though no sibling is named.

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 intent (inspect a worker's webhook configuration and health) is implied but never stated as 'use this when...'. It does not tell the agent when to prefer this over get_webhook_deliveries or when set_webhook/clear_webhook is the right sibling instead.

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