Describe webhook event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing that two distinct schemas are returned (subscription body incl. event-specific `filter`, and delivery payload for `hookUrl`). It does not mention error behavior for an invalid enum value, but the behavioral picture is otherwise solid.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the primary return value, with the secondary return value appended compactly. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so at a conceptual level — two JSON Schemas with distinct purposes. It omits the concrete response shape (e.g., field names distinguishing the two schemas), so an agent still learns the exact structure only from the response, but nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum of eight event types is fully enumerated in the schema, so the description adds little about the single `type` argument itself beyond restating it as 'webhook event type'. The mention of an event-specific `filter` describes the output rather than the parameter, so 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 ('Returns') and a precisely scoped resource: the JSON Schemas of both the subscription body and the delivered payload for a single webhook event type. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_webhook_subscription, list_webhook_subscriptions, and create_webhook_subscription, which operate on subscription instances rather than event-type 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?

Usage is strongly implied by naming `create_webhook_subscription` / `update_webhook_subscription` as the consumers of the returned schema, which tells the agent when this lookup is needed. It stops short of an explicit 'call this before constructing a subscription body' instruction and gives no guidance on behavior for an unsupported type, but the context is clear.

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