get_webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by disclosing that the response includes sensitive fields like 'secret' and 'API version'. This alerts the agent that the output contains confidential data, which is behavioral context not present in annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes: verb, resource, scope, and noteworthy response contents.

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 read-only retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and highlights the sensitive data returned, with no missing context.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'id' and 'fields'. The description only references 'by ID' and doesn't clarify the 'fields' parameter, but the schema already handles that. Since schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'webhook' and scope 'by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_webhooks, create_webhook, update_webhook, and delete_webhook. The mention of 'full details' and 'secret and API version' sets it apart as the detailed getter for a single webhook.

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?

The description implies it should be used when retrieving a single webhook's full details by ID, which clearly contrasts with list_webhooks for listing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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