webhooks__get_webhook_settings

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the response contains auth_token as sensitive data to not log, and adds an MCP-server rate limit (1 request/60s) with a caching recommendation. These are meaningful behavioral facts not present in the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but the structure is run-on: docstring-style Args/Returns sections are fused with the 'Где взять ID' pointer and a throttling note appended at the end without clear separation. It would benefit from tighter organization.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, it covers the return fields (web_hooks_uri, auth_token), the sensitive-data caveat, and server throttling. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only a brief note on what webhook settings are used for is absent, which is minor.

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?

Despite 0% top-level schema coverage, the nested $defs already document organizationId as a UUID. The description's 'request: Параметры запроса (organization_id)' mostly restates the schema, but the pointer 'organizationId → organizations__get_organizations' adds real value by telling the agent where to source the value. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 opens with 'Получить webhook-настройки организации' — a specific verb + resource + scope. It is clearly distinct from the many sibling get_*_by_organization tools (e.g., organizations__get_organization_settings), and no other sibling covers webhook settings.

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?

It gives explicit context for the prerequisite: 'Где взять ID: organizationId → organizations__get_organizations' routes the agent to the correct sibling for obtaining the parameter value. It does not state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but no competing tool for webhook settings exists, so exclusions are less critical.

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