get_webhook_playbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the tool is a read-only retrieval operation ('Returns') and details all delivered content: event vocabulary, retry policies, signature verification, etc. It does not claim any side effects or mutations. The emphasis that integrators should not rely on memory signals the tool's authoritative nature. This is sufficient behavioral transparency for a query tool.

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 long but densely packed with essential information, organized as a list of contract aspects and retry policies. The mandatory-use warning is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes value. While verbose, the complexity of webhook contracts justifies the detail; there is no redundant 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, and it does so extensively: it lists envelope schema, event categories, HTTP response codes, idempotency, replay protection, signature verification, retry policies, and common mistakes. It also explains parameter usage for scoping results. For a reference tool covering a complex integration surface, this is complete.

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 three parameters (category, eventType, includeDelivery) are fully documented in the schema with enums and examples. The description only adds a generic suggestion to filter by category or eventType, but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('canonical PayRetailers webhook contract') and enumerates the exact contents: envelope schema, event vocabulary, HTTP response contract, idempotency, replay protection, signature verification, retry policies, and common pitfalls. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_docs or get_endpoint_spec, which are generic or endpoint-specific rather than webhook-contract-specific.

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 description explicitly mandates when to use the tool: 'REQUIRED before implementing any webhook receiver or reconciliation flow' and 'Do not attempt to design a webhook handler from memory — call this tool first.' It also advises filtering by category or eventType for focused answers, giving clear guidance on how to invoke it effectively. No alternatives are mentioned, but the tool is positioned as the definitive prerequisite, so exclusion guidance is unnecessary.

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