Get Webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about auth requirements, error behavior when the id does not exist, or rate limits. It only restates the read intent already implied by the name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent may need, but structure and economy are sound.

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 is a simple single-resource read and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations at all, the definition leaves the behavioral surface (failure modes, permissions) entirely undocumented, which is a gap even for a trivial read.

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% — the single webhook_id parameter is already documented in the schema as 'The webhook's unique id.' The description adds no format, source, or lookup hints beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (webhook) with the scoping qualifier 'by id', which cleanly separates it from list_webhooks and delete_webhook in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the single-resource read intent is unambiguous.

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 guidance is given; the description never mentions list_webhooks as the alternative for enumerating webhooks, nor any condition or prerequisite for fetching a single one. Usage is inferable only from the tool name.

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