surveymonkey_get_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Returns the details' appropriately signals a read-only operation, but it does not disclose possible errors (e.g., 404 for invalid ID), authentication requirements, or any response behavior beyond the existence of an output 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The separate Args section is redundant with the input schema, costing a small penalty, but otherwise there is no wasted text.

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 single-resource getter, the description is minimally viable: it names the operation and the required parameter. The presence of an output schema relieves it from explaining return values, but it lacks usage context and any hint about where webhook_id comes from.

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 0%, so the description should add meaning beyond the schema. However, 'webhook_id: Webhook ID' merely restates the schema property title and adds no detail about format, origin, or how the value is used.

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 and resource: 'Returns the details of a specific webhook.' This distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete webhooks, though it does not explicitly name siblings or contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool vs. list_webhooks, how to obtain a webhook_id, or what prerequisites exist. The only implication is that the caller already has a specific webhook ID.

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