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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the raw endpoint path and nothing about return shape, pagination, or what happens when the user shares nothing, so it contributes almost no behavioral value.

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, no padding, with the purpose front-loaded before the endpoint path. Efficient, though the endpoint path is arguably redundant given the tool name.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, this is minimally viable. The main gap is disambiguation from the near-identical 'shared with' 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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'User ID to get data webhooks shared by'. The description merely echoes that ('shared by specific user'), adding no format, constraints, or example beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 and resource ('Get data webhooks') plus a scope qualifier ('shared by specific user'), which distinguishes it from the generic get_webhook_data_shared. However it never names or contrasts with the very similar siblings get_webhook_data_shared_with_id or get_webhook_bot_shared_by_id, so the 'by vs with' distinction must be inferred.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. In a sibling set that contains get_webhook_data_shared, get_webhook_data_shared_with_id, and get_webhook_data_id_shares, the agent is left to guess which retrieval variant applies.

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