Get Webhook Subscription

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

The description adds real context beyond the schema: ownership scoping to the authenticated user, the underlying GET endpoint, and a cost caveat about the credit manifest. However, it presents this as a pure read ("Fetch", GET) while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, leaving the agent with contradictory expectations about whether the call is side-effect free.

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 one-line purpose, then structured metadata (group, endpoint, required param, cost). The "[Required: id]" line duplicates the schema's required list, but the overall payload is compact and scannable.

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 lookup with an output schema available, the description covers ownership, endpoint, and cost caveat. It omits what happens when the id is unknown or not owned by the caller (404/403), which would help an agent handle failures.

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% and the single id parameter is already documented as coming from GET /v1/webhooks, so the description's "[Required: id]" adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Fetch a single webhook subscription") and scopes it to the authenticated user, plus the group and endpoint line. The word "single" implicitly distinguishes it from the list sibling astroway_webhooks_webhooks, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 establishes context (owned by the authenticated user) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among the many webhook siblings (list, subscribe, id_test). An agent must infer that this is the single-record variant of the list tool.

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