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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is fully covered. The description only adds the underlying HTTP route (GET /api/v2/webhook/bot/shared/by/{id}), which is minor extra context and does not disclose return shape or pagination.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The raw endpoint path is slightly redundant technical filler, but it costs almost nothing and the structure is clean.

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 read-only, one-parameter lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, this is nearly complete. The only unaddressed element is whether the result is a list and how it is bounded/ordered.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('User ID to get webhooks shared by'), so the schema already carries full meaning. The description adds nothing beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (Get) and resource (webhooks shared by a specific user), which notably distinguishes it from the similarly-named sibling get_webhook_bot_shared_with_id (shared *with* a user). It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the 'by' scoping is precise enough for an agent to differentiate.

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 'shared by specific user' framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the alternatives (get_webhook_bot_shared, get_webhook_bot_shared_with_id). The agent must infer selection from the direction of sharing.

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