Get Webhook

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is real: it discloses a permission-dependent behavior (the signing secret is omitted for read-only keys and only returned for full-access or account-scoped keys) and describes the health fields returned. That is context an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the two facts that matter (returned health data, conditional secret). 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return payload and the permission gating. It doesn't cover failure behavior for an unknown/invalid id or how delivery detail relates to get_webhook_delivery, leaving a small gap for a simple one-param read.

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 id property already documents its origin, so the schema carries the load. The description only reinforces that the id is numeric, adding little beyond structured data – baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single webhook endpoint by its numeric id') and enumerates what comes back: delivery health and, conditionally, the signing secret. That distinguishes it from list_webhooks and get_webhook_delivery without needing their schemas.

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?

The scope ('single ... by its numeric id' plus the schema note that the id comes from list_webhooks or create_webhook) makes the use case clear. It stops short of explicit exclusions – e.g. pointing at get_webhook_delivery for per-attempt history or list_webhooks when no id is known.

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