aircall_get_webhook

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish this is a safe read operation. The description adds the detail that the response includes subscribed events, which provides some return-value context, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like required permissions or response structure. With annotations covering the safety profile, this adds minimal extra 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?

One sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate: it states the purpose and the notable return detail (subscribed events). However, it could be slightly more explicit about what other fields are included, but given the simplicity, it's complete enough.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage with 'The webhook ID' for webhook_id. The tool description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that a specific webhook is targeted, which is already in the schema. No need for more.

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 the resource 'webhook' and clarifies it returns detailed information including subscribed events. This distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete webhook siblings, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage for a specific webhook by ID, contrasting with listing all webhooks. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like aircall_list_webhooks or state exclusions, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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