edubase_get_organization_webhook

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). It does not clarify what 'check' implies (e.g., existence verification, 404 on missing webhook) or any additional context. No contradiction exists, but the description is redundant with the annotation title.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and object efficiently, making every word contribute to meaning.

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 two required, fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. Minor gaps include absence of guidance on error behavior when the webhook is not found, but output schema likely covers return details.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema's terse 'identification string' notes; it merely restates that the webhook belongs to the organization, without further detail.

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 a clear verb ('Get/check') and identifies the resource ('webhook configured in organization'). It is not tautological and does not confuse with organization-level or mutation webhook tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the webhook post/patch/delete sibling tools. It does not mention that this is the read-only variant or when one would want to verify webhook configuration.

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