Get webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds marginal context ('provider scopes, locks and credits apply') indicating scope/auth and locking constraints, but 'Read operation' duplicates readOnlyHint and the vague 'credits apply' is not elaborated for a read call.

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?

Three compact fragments, front-loaded with the endpoint, no wasted prose. It is efficient, though the trailing 'Read operation' is redundant filler that earns nothing.

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 should ideally hint at what a webhook record contains or error behavior on a missing uid, but it does not. For a simple read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile it is adequate, but the vague 'scopes, locks and credits' clause leaves behavior under-specified.

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 only 50%: the 'account' parameter has a schema description, but 'uid' does not, and the description only echoes the uid via the URL path template. It adds no meaning about the uid pattern, length bounds, or how 'account' scoping interacts with the lookup, leaving the coverage gap uncompensated.

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 restates the REST endpoint 'GET /v5/webhooks/{uid}', which conveys a specific verb (fetch) and resource (single webhook by uid), so an agent can infer it is a single-resource retrieve. However, it offers no differentiation from its direct siblings list_webhooks, create_webhook, update_webhook, and delete_webhook beyond the HTTP path, making it only minimally viable.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative (list_webhooks for enumeration) or prerequisites. The only usage signal is the bare 'Read operation' phrase, which provides no decision context for an agent choosing between this and its siblings.

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