tokportal_get_webhook_endpoint

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations state. Given good annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single seven-word sentence. It is concise but arguably under-specified for a tool with many siblings. It does not waste words but also does not earn its place by adding value beyond the title and name.

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?

The tool has low complexity: one required UUID parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema. The description is minimally sufficient for a simple read operation. However, it does not explain what the returned endpoint data contains (e.g., URL, events, status), which could help an agent use the result later. Still, completeness is adequate given the simplicity and annotations.

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% with one parameter, id, which has a clear description and format. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Since there is only one well-documented parameter, baseline 3 is correct.

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.' It is a specific verb-resource pair that is clear on its face. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'tokportal_list_webhook_endpoints' (which likely returns a list) or 'tokportal_test_webhook_endpoint', leaving the agent without differentiation.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. For example, the agent must decide between this tool and 'tokportal_list_webhook_endpoints' or 'tokportal_test_webhook_endpoint' without any hints. There are no usage context notes, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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