mercury_get_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It clarifies the tool is a read operation (retrieve), specifies the return shape with fields like id, url, status, events, and implies safety. A perfect score would require mentioning potential errors or permissions, but for a simple get, this is strong.

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 extremely concise: one main sentence followed by three directive bullets (USE WHEN, DO NOT USE, RETURNS). Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy.

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 get operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, return structure, and differentiation from sibling tools. It provides enough context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema already covers the single parameter 'webhookId' with 100% description coverage. The description reinforces that the ID is known but adds no new semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Retrieve a specific webhook endpoint by ID,' using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like mercury_list_webhooks, which is used 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?

Explicit guidelines are provided: 'USE WHEN' fetching full detail of one webhook with known ID, and 'DO NOT USE' to enumerate webhooks (with alternative mercury_list_webhooks named). This leaves no ambiguity for the agent.

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