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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It contributes the API endpoint (GET /webhook) but says nothing about error behavior for a missing id, permissions, or pagination-less single-record semantics.

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 terse sentences with the operation stated first and the endpoint appended as reference data. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, most needs are met. But with no output schema, a brief note on what a webhook record contains (or what a miss returns) would fill the remaining gap.

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 wid parameter is already documented as "Webhook id (from hdphotohub_list_webhooks)." The description's 'by id' merely restates 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one webhook by id") and includes the underlying API route, so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with hdphotohub_list_webhooks or hdphotohub_list_webhook_events, though the phrase 'by id' implicitly separates it from listing tools.

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 only implied: 'by id' suggests a single-record lookup once you have a webhook id, and the schema points at hdphotohub_list_webhooks as the id source. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the list tool or what happens if the id doesn't exist.

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