beel_get_webhook_subscription

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a specific behavioral fact: the signing secret is never included in the response, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a key behavioral note and the endpoint. Every element earns its place.

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 simple read operation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is returned, the secret exclusion, and the exact endpoint. The absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the parameters make further detail unnecessary.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters (account_id and webhook_id) with detailed explanations about ownership and 404 behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('a single webhook subscription'), distinguishing it from list, create, delete, and patch operations. The additional note about the signing secret not being included further clarifies its scope.

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 implied by the name and description (retrieve a specific subscription by ID), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list or patch. The endpoint path implies the need for account_id and webhook_id, but no alternative routing is given.

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