webhooks_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the dispatch mechanism (endpoint name passed via `name`) but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or per-endpoint caveats, so it clears the lowered bar without excelling.

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 tight sentences with the resource and endpoint count front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage rule and discovery pointer. No filler.

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 dispatcher with full schema coverage and safety annotations, plus a pointer to list_endpoints for discovery, the description is nearly sufficient. The absence of any per-endpoint behavior note (e.g., path placeholder needs for webhook_details) is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 `body`, `name`, `query`, and `path_params` are already documented in the schema. The description clarifies how `name` is populated (endpoint names from this group) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, matching the baseline 3 for schema-driven params.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read operations on Fivetran webhooks') and enumerates the two concrete endpoints it fronts (list_all_webhooks, webhook_details). An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like users_read, groups_read, or metadata_read.

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?

It tells the agent the calling protocol ('Pass the endpoint name in `name`') and routes to a concrete alternative for discovery ('Call list_endpoints(category=\'webhooks\') for the full list'). It gives clear context for use but does not state any when-not conditions.

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