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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds useful behavioral detail: the response contains the full request including headers, raw body, and derived provider/event detection, implying no transformation. It does not cover error conditions or exact formatting, but the added context goes beyond the annotation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and the parenthetical 'in full' enumerates specifics without redundancy. Every word contributes.

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 read-only tool with readOnlyHint, the description conveys core behavior, but it omits any parameter guidance and does not explain when to prefer this tool over explain_webhook_request or replay_webhook_request. With no output schema, a bit more detail on how the request is identified or what 'full' excludes would improve completeness.

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 0% and neither 'token' nor 'request_id' is explained in the description. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation by clarifying formats, ownership, or how they relate to the returned request.

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 clear verb ('Return'), a specific object ('one captured request'), and distinguishes scope by saying 'in full' and enumerating contents (headers, raw body, detected provider/event), separating it from list/explain/replay siblings.

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 makes the read/retrieval purpose obvious but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over list_webhook_requests or explain_webhook_request. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, so usage is only implied by the phrase 'one captured request in full.'

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