get_webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so no additional behavioral context is added. The description does not provide extra details such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects, but the existing annotations adequately cover the safety profile.

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 very short (one phrase) and front-loaded, but it lacks structure or additional context that would make it more informative. It is concise but could benefit from elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, good annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention the return value or how it contrasts with 'get_webhooks'. It is complete enough for basic use but lacks specifics.

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%, and the parameter 'id' is already described in the schema. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 states the action 'Get' and the resource 'registered webhook', which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_webhooks' (which likely lists all webhooks), as it does not specify retrieval by ID.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_webhooks' or 'update_webhook'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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