Get event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the description's added value is the disclosure of truncation behavior ('Long bodies are cut at max_body_chars'), which tells the agent results may be partial. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown event id or what 'signature status' concretely reports.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the returned-field list comes first and the truncation caveat is placed last where it belongs as a qualifier.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description adequately signals the shape of the response and the one lossy behavior. Missing only edge-case behavior such as a not-found event or the meaning of signature status.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail, including the accepted event_id forms. The description reinforces the truncation semantics of max_body_chars but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb ('Reads') plus resource ('one captured webhook') and an enumeration of what is returned: method, headers, query string, body, signature status. The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from list_events, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 the word 'Reads one' — an agent can infer this is for inspecting a single captured event after finding its id. There is no explicit when-to-use, no pointer to list_events for discovery, and no guidance on when compare_events or replay_event would be preferred.

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