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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the key behavioral trait (non-mutating), and the description matches that by presenting a simple retrieval. No additional behavioral disclosure (e.g., not found behavior, permissions required) is provided, but none is strongly required for a simple read-only lookup.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and the key qualifier ('by ID'). Every word adds information; there is no filler or buried detail.

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 trivial single-ID retrieval operation, the description plus schema covers the required input and intent. It does not explain return values or error behavior, but with no output schema and a read-only annotation, the missing context is acceptable.

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 schema already fully documents the id parameter with description 'Webhook subscription ID'. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no extra meaning such as format, scope, or examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Get') and resource ('webhook subscription detail') and clarifies the selection mechanism ('by ID'). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get-style tools beyond the resource name embedded in the tool name itself.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lexq_webhook_subscriptions_list or lexq_webhook_subscriptions_delete. The 'by ID' phrasing weakly implies it is for single-record lookups, but there is no explicit usage context or exclusions.

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