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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the secret is never returned (hasSecret boolean only, 'never echo a secret over MCP') and states the plan prerequisite (BUSINESS+). These are behavioral constraints the readOnly/idempotent hints do not convey.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: identity/scope first, the security behavior second, and the gating prerequisite last. 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description closes the two gaps an agent actually needs: what is returned (metadata, no secret) and the plan gate required to call it.

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% for the single webhookId parameter, so the schema offers no meaning. The description compensates only minimally by implying the parameter is an id; it adds no format, lookup, or error semantics.

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 and resource with scope: 'Get one webhook by id.' The 'one ... by id' framing distinguishes it from the sibling list_webhooks without needing to name it 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 implied by the get-by-id shape (you already have a webhookId), but the description never states when to prefer this over list_webhooks or when a webhook is unavailable, and gives no exclusions.

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