Show Webinar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds permission requirements (the 'Read all data' scope and delegated token behavior), which is useful auth context beyond annotations. However it doesn't cover error behavior for missing ids or account scoping semantics.

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 first sentence is efficient and front-loaded. But the permission block is verbose, including a full fenced code block and multi-sentence token explanation that could be more compact. The core purpose gets buried under auth boilerplate.

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 read-by-id tool with annotations covering safety and a fully-described schema, the definition is complete enough to call correctly. The permission details are a bonus. Missing only a note on what happens if the id doesn't exist, which is a minor gap for a read operation.

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 100% – both 'id' (hashed ID of the webinar) and 'account' (named private Wistia account) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Returns the webinar associated with the hashed id.' This distinguishes it from list_webinars and create/update/delete_webinar. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_webinar_analytics or other webinar retrieval siblings, but the singular-resource-by-id framing is clear.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't say to use this instead of list_webinars when you have a specific hashed id, nor does it point to update_webinar for mutations. Usage is only implied by the verb choice.

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