Show Webhook Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never mentions pagination behavior, that results are filterable by date or HTTP status, or how many events are returned by default, despite pagination params in the schema.

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?

It is a single short sentence with zero padding, which is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, omitting meaningful context that this multi-parameter tool needs.

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 an 8-parameter tool with pagination, date-range, and HTTP-status filtering, the description says nothing about those capabilities, and with no output schema it also fails to characterize return values. An agent would need to reverse-engineer behavior entirely from the schema.

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 all eight parameters (per, page, created_after/before, response_http_status_gte/lte, etc.) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaulting, or format context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Fetch) and resource (all the events for a webhook), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_webhooks (which enumerates webhooks rather than their events). It is clear, though it offers no explicit sibling differentiation or scoping detail.

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 alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a valid webhook_id), and no conditions or exclusions. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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