get_webhook

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description goes further by disclosing the redaction rules (headers names but not values, host and path but not query string, no Basic-auth password) and the auth credential requirement. It also flags that a webhook disabled by Skilljar can look healthy except for active and deactivate_reason, which is valuable behavioral insight beyond the 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds redaction, troubleshooting, and auth context. Every sentence earns its place, though the redaction paragraph is a bit detailed for a single get operation.

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 operation with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool fetches, how sensitive fields are redacted, a practical tip about deactivation reasons, and the required credential. The safety profile is already provided by annotations, and return structure is handled by the output schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema only says id is a required string, and the description does not explicitly explain the id format or what resource it references. The phrase 'one webhook subscription' helps infer that id identifies a webhook, but the description does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter-level documentation in the schema.

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 opens with 'Fetch one webhook subscription', which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the sibling list_webhooks by emphasizing a single item, and the wording clearly identifies the operation without ambiguity.

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 gives useful context: it mentions the sibling list_webhooks for redaction behavior and explains when deactivate_reason matters for troubleshooting. However, it never explicitly states when to choose get_webhook over list_webhooks or other alternatives, leaving the selection logic mostly implicit.

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