Get an incoming webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact beyond structured data: the URL is deliberately omitted from the response, which prevents a wasted call for an agent seeking the secret endpoint. It stops short of describing not-found behavior or the full field set.

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?

Two tight clauses with zero filler; the returned-fields summary comes first and the key exclusion ('Never its URL') is stated bluntly at the end where it will be read.

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 annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does list the salient fields. It is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is the absence of any contrast with get_webhook, which an agent scanning a large sibling set could confuse it with.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the id and where to source it. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one incoming webhook) and enumerates the fields returned: number, destination, enabled state. 'One' distinguishes it from list_incoming_webhooks, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling get_webhook, so the reader must infer that 'incoming' is the distinguishing qualifier.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternatives. The closest thing to guidance is the negative constraint 'Never its URL', which implicitly tells the agent not to call this for the webhook URL but never says which tool to use instead. The schema, not the description, is where the link back to list_incoming_webhooks lives.

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