Get webhook events

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations do not: a 100 requests/10 seconds per-shop rate limit and the 100-item page-size cap.

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?

Two compact paragraphs with no filler; every sentence carries information. The rate-limit notice is front-loaded ahead of the purpose statement, which is slightly awkward ordering but not wasteful.

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?

Covers pagination, filtering syntax, and rate limits, which is most of what an agent needs to invoke it. With no output schema, the description never describes the shape of a returned webhook event, leaving a gap for a list/read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining that the `type` filter accepts repeated or comma-separated values and reiterating the page-size cap. The `account` parameter's label semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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+resource (get webhook events) and scopes it with pagination and optional type filtering, which distinguishes it from the singular get_webhook_event. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied through the pagination and filtering hints, and the rate-limit note signals a high-volume read. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus list_webhooks or get_webhook_event, nor any prerequisite or exclusion conditions.

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