get_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and adds substantive context: the signing secret is deliberately omitted from the response, and access is gated on an environment variable plus a server restart. The explicit warning that start_login will NOT open this tool prevents a plausible wrong turn. Missing: whether secret omission applies to updates or what other sensitive fields are redacted.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the secret-omission caveat, then the access block — a sensible order. The access sentences are slightly wordy ('restart this server, then call this tool again') but each clause carries unique information. 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?

This is a simple read-only getter with a full output schema, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the one surprising gap (absent secret) plus access requirements. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be missing. It could be a 5 with a pointer to how to obtain a valid ID.

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 a single documented id parameter including a 24-hex-char pattern, so the schema does the work. The description only repeats 'by ID' and adds no format, source, or lookup hints beyond it. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get one webhook endpoint) and scopes it to a single item by ID, which distinguishes it from the list sibling. It also names create_webhook_endpoint and rotate_webhook_endpoint_secret as the tools that do return the signing secret, giving useful contrast. It stops short of a fully explicit routing sentence (e.g. use list_webhook_endpoints to obtain IDs), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition: a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY set and the server restarted, and explicitly rules out start_login as a way to unlock this tool. That is real when/when-not guidance. It does not discuss pagination-adjacent alternatives or when to prefer re-fetching vs. using data from another call.

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