wp_get_woocommerce_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' clearly indicates a read/retrieve operation with no mutation, which is the core behavioral trait. It does not discuss error cases, permissions, or response format, but for a simple get-by-ID operation this is a reasonable though not rich disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place: action, resource type, and lookup key.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and how to identify it. There is no output schema, so a phrase about the return value or error behavior could add completeness, but the tool's simplicity means the current description is unlikely to confuse an agent.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, id, as a WooCommerce webhook ID with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' reinforces that but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('WooCommerce native webhook'), and the lookup key ('by ID'). It also distinguishes this tool from related siblings like wp_get_custom_webhook and wp_list_woocommerce_webhooks by using 'native' and '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?

Using 'native' and 'by ID' implies this is the tool to call when you have a webhook ID and need a single WooCommerce webhook, not a custom webhook. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over wp_list_woocommerce_webhooks or wp_get_custom_webhook, leaving some inference to the agent.

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