Webhooks Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the underlying HTTP call (GET /webhooks/{id}), the API version (2025-03), and the required OAuth scope, which is an auth prerequisite not present in the annotations.

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?

Four short lines with zero filler: purpose first, then endpoint, scope, and API version. Every line carries distinct information and the most important sentence is front-loaded.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers endpoint, auth scope, and version, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The minor gap is that it does not characterize the returned webhook object (URL, topics, status) despite there being no output schema to fall back on.

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%, so the schema already documents id, fields, and response_format with examples and enum values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting here.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Get one webhook"), and the word "one" distinguishes it from the sibling tiendanube_webhooks_list, which retrieves a collection. It is unambiguous what the tool returns conceptually, though it never names the list sibling explicitly as the alternative for enumeration.

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 supplies a concrete prerequisite — "Required scope: scope of the event's entity" — which tells the agent about authorization requirements before calling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance (e.g., use tiendanube_webhooks_list to enumerate), leaving selection semantics implicit in the "Get one" phrasing.

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