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 safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination, no return shape, no scoping notes — it essentially restates the endpoint name.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded with the raw endpoint appended for reference. Minimal waste, though the endpoint path adds little semantic value for an agent.

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 definition is minimally sufficient. The real gap is disambiguation from the closely named shared/shared_by_id siblings, which the description does not address.

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 100%; the schema already states 'User ID to get webhooks shared with'. The description's phrase 'shared with specific user' adds no format, source, or constraint information beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (webhooks shared with a user), and the endpoint path reinforces the intent. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as get_webhook_bot_shared and get_webhook_bot_shared_by_id, leaving the agent to guess which variant to call.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The agent is not told how this differs from get_webhook_bot_shared or get_webhook_bot_shared_by_id, which is exactly the ambiguity that matters here.

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