Get webhook configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so 'Read-only.' is largely redundant. The genuinely additive content is the note that this MCP server cannot receive webhooks itself, which explains why the URL is exposed for inspection – but nothing is said about behavior when no webhook is configured.

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?

Three tight sentences with the return value front-loaded and the conceptual explanation following. The trailing 'Read-only.' adds little given the annotations, but the rest earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return value and does so ('the webhook URL'). Only the edge case of an unconfigured webhook (null vs error) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter 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 coverage is 100% and the instance_id description already covers the optional-when-ZAPZAP_INSTANCE_ID-is-set fallback. The phrase 'for the instance' in the description corroborates but does not extend the schema.

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 and resource ('Returns the webhook URL currently configured for the instance'), which cleanly separates it from set_webhook and test_webhook siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the get/set contrast is inferable.

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?

The description explains context (webhooks carry incoming messages, delivery status and poll votes) but never says when to call this versus test_webhook or get_webhook_deliveries. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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