hb_describe_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioural context: retries are part of the delivery explanation, and the payload is explicitly privacy-scrubbed (ids, statuses, dates, candidate_ref; never names, emails or health data), which tells an agent it can safely surface this output.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return contents, then the privacy constraint and the 'knowledge only' qualifier. No 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value information — and it does, naming all four return components plus the payload field categories. For a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs 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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, with the schema itself supplying the example form 'occupational-health.request.submitted'. The description adds no further naming convention, wildcard or nesting rules, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Describe one webhook event') with an enumerated account of what the description returns: summary, retry behaviour, payload schema, sample payload. The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling hb_list_events, which enumerates many.

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 trailing 'Knowledge only.' signals this is static reference information rather than live data, which is useful, but the description never states when to reach for it versus hb_list_events or hb_describe_operation, nor any prerequisite such as obtaining the event_type first.

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