webhooks_get_with_token

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the absence of the bot auth header and Discord's rejection of bot auth on token routes. It also clarifies return semantics (token preserved, `untrusted_name` fenced), which is not evident from annotations or schema.

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, with bold headers and bullet points that make it skimmable. Every sentence adds unique value—purpose, when-to-use, auth behavior, and return details—with no fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter GET tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, authentication nuance, and return specifics. Nothing important is missing to guide correct invocation.

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%, with both `webhook_id` and `token` already described in the schema (e.g., token length, credential warning). The description adds minimal new parameter meaning beyond reinforcing that the token comes from `webhooks_create`, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a webhook by id + token without bot auth.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling `webhooks_get`, which presumably uses bot auth. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 'When to use' section explicitly specifies the context: holding the token (e.g., from `webhooks_create`) but lacking guild access. It provides a clear scenario, but does not explicitly name the alternative `webhooks_get` for when guild access is available, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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