edubase_get_organization_webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes the webhook's title and active status, which is useful. It does not disclose potential 404 behavior or whether the webhook must belong to the specified organization, but for a simple read operation with strong annotations, this is acceptable.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the returned data. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 getter with two required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the webhook is identified by an ID string and that the organization is the parent scope, but the schema already covers parameter names and types. The output schema presumably documents the return shape, so the description does not need to.

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%, so both parameters ('organization' and 'webhook') are already described as identification strings. The description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('webhook of an organization') and specifies the returned fields ('its title and whether it is active'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling webhook tools like edubase_post_organization_webhook or edubase_patch_organization_webhook, which are clearly different operations.

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 a read operation for retrieving a single webhook, and the readOnlyHint annotation reinforces that. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing webhooks or creating/updating webhooks. The context is clear enough for a simple getter, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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