Get a webhook endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: response secrets are redacted, and a new signing secret is written only to a private local file — a surprising side effect for a 'read' operation that the schema and annotations do not reveal.

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 short clauses, no filler, and the most important behavioral detail (secret redaction/local file write) is placed where the agent will see it. Slightly weakened by the vague, low-value sentence 'Reads account data.'

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 describe what is actually returned; instead it only says secrets are redacted and file-saved. The account-scoping and ID requirements are covered by the schema, and annotations carry the safety profile, so this is adequate but leaves the return shape unexplained.

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 both parameters (account and webhook_endpoint_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing further about parameter meaning, which is acceptable here — baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 says 'Get a webhook endpoint,' which is a clear verb+resource but is nearly a verbatim restatement of the title. It also fails to distinguish this tool from the near-identical siblings list_webhook_endpoints and get_webhook, so an agent gets no disambiguation signal.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_webhook_endpoints, get_webhook, or update_webhook_endpoint. 'Reads account data' is a vague statement of an effect, not a usage condition, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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