coronium_get_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the webhook's purpose, the condition for firing, and the meaning of null (disabled with email fallback). It doesn't elaborate on auth requirements or rate limits, but for a simple getter this is sufficient transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with a parenthetical clarifying null behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every word adds value.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain return value semantics, and it does: it indicates the success value (URL) and the disabled case (null). For a simple getter with no parameters, this is a complete description.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully defines the input. The description adds no parameter details, but given the absence of parameters, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves the account's modem-lifecycle webhook URL and specifies the triggering event (dead modem auto-swap). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_webhook and other getters, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clearly implies the tool is used to check the current webhook configuration and provides context for interpreting null results. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over coronium_set_webhook or other alternatives, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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