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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing a redaction rule: secret parameter values and the signing secret are never returned, which tells the agent not to expect full configuration even in the returned object. It stops short of noting error behavior for an unknown ID.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the scope-defining first sentence comes first and the caveat about redacted secrets follows immediately. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 needn't detail return fields, and it still summarizes them at a useful altitude; the redaction note closes the main expectation gap. The only remaining omission is how an agent obtains a valid webhook ID, which is minor for a one-parameter read 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the required 'id' string. The description adds no format hints, no explanation of where the ID comes from, and nothing beyond what the structured field provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Gets a webhook') and enumerates exactly what comes back: endpoint, subscribed events, parameters, signing setting, enabled state. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like get_webhook_event or list_webhooks, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 only implied by the 'get' verb plus the 'ID of the webhook to retrieve' parameter — clearly a single-record lookup by ID. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_webhooks (to discover IDs) or get_webhook_event (for event payloads), and no statement of prerequisites such as needing an existing webhook ID.

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