get_webhook

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned fields (URL, events, active status), which is helpful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, behavior when the ID is unknown (404 vs empty), or authorization requirements.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-ID getter with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, naming the returned fields covers the main gap. Only error/not-found behavior and permission expectations are missing, which are modest omissions here.

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% and the single parameter is documented as a 'Webhook UUID' in the schema. The description adds no format hints or sourcing guidance beyond that, so the schema does all the work — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (webhook) and enumerates what comes back (URL, events, active status), which separates it from list_webhooks and create/update_webhook at a glance. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so it stays just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular resource and the required id parameter; there is no explicit statement that this is the single-record lookup versus list_webhooks, nor any precondition such as needing an existing webhook ID. An agent can infer it, but nothing is spelled out.

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