Get webhook contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the content and the optional filtering behavior, which implies a read-only retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, potential authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned, but leaves the operational profile implicit.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('full delivery contract') and immediately lists key contents, then introduces the optional event-specific detail. No redundancy or filler; every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what it returns and how the parameter affects the result. It lacks examples of eventType values and explicit error conditions, but given the low complexity, these are minor gaps.

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 has one parameter (eventType) with zero description coverage. The description partially compensates by explaining that providing it yields detail for one specific event type, while omitting it yields the full contract. However, it does not define valid event type values or format, leaving the agent to infer or discover them elsewhere.

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 the tool retrieves a webhook delivery contract, specifying the exact contents (headers, HMAC formula, timestamp/ordering rules) and the optional event-specific detail. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that is distinct from all sibling tools, which target capabilities, knowledge, operations, SDKs, errors, recipes, and integration planning.

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 implies usage: omit eventType for the full contract, provide it for a specific event type. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is clear. The guidance on parameter behavior is effective but not explicit about when to choose this over others.

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