Consultar webhook de abertura de contas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the tool does not modify event reception and confirms specific fields (URL, creation date). However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like response size or pagination. Given the strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the action and resource, then provide usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary words.

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?

The description is functionally complete given the presence of an output schema and strong annotations. It covers the purpose, usage context, and safety (non-modification). It doesn't explicitly describe the return structure, but the output schema likely covers that. A minor gap is that it doesn't mention what happens if the webhook doesn't exist, but that's acceptable. Score 4.

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%, with clear descriptions for the required parameter. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the default score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action (query a webhook configuration by identifier) and its purpose (confirm URL and creation date without modifying event reception). It distinguishes from sibling webhook tools by specifying 'account opening' context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other detail webhooks.

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 explicitly states the use case: to confirm URL and creation date without modification. This guides the agent to use it for read-only verification. However, it does not explicitly list when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives, such as using list or config webhook tools when a different operation is needed.

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