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. The description adds only 'Get' and a redundant GET endpoint path, disclosing no additional behavioral traits such as authentication, pagination, or return behavior.

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 definition is two short fragments and front-loads the purpose before the endpoint. It is efficient, though the raw endpoint path is arguably redundant for an agent that already has the schema.

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 annotation coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly. It lacks sibling differentiation and any pagination or return-format notes, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter is already documented in the schema as 'User ID to get data webhooks shared with'. The description's phrase 'specific user' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('data webhooks'), and scope ('shared with specific user'), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_webhook_data_shared_by_id. It does not explicitly name the alternative, but the phrasing makes the with/by distinction clear.

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?

It implies when to use the tool by describing the exact scope ('shared with specific user'), but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool routing. Sibling tools like get_webhook_data_shared and get_webhook_data_shared_by_id are not mentioned.

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