Contract Testing: Get Webhook

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the operation itself, such as response shape, error/404 behavior, or relationship to other webhook tools. It simply restates the retrieval action without enriching it with non-obvious traits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a minimal parameter list. The 'Toolset: Webhooks' line adds mild navigational context, and the parameter block is slightly redundant with the schema, but there is no unnecessary prose or padding.

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 single-parameter get-by-UUID operation with annotations covering the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, the description provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It does not detail the return shape, but the phrase 'Retrieve details' gives a reasonable expectation, and no output schema exists to provide more structure.

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 schema already documents webhookId as a required string UUID. The description repeats the same parameter information without adding extra semantics, such as how to obtain a valid webhookId or any format edge cases. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 action ('Retrieve details'), a specific resource ('webhook'), and the required selector ('by UUID'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like contract-testing_list_webhooks or contract-testing_execute_webhook without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when you need details for one specific webhook and have its UUID. It does not explicitly compare against list_webhooks or note that list_webhooks should be used when the UUID is unknown, but the UUID-based scoping makes the usage context clear enough for a simple get-by-id tool.

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