get_webhook_url

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

Mentions optional validation behavior, which adds some transparency. However, no details on error handling, side effects, or what happens if token doesn't exist. Without annotations, description carries full burden but is incomplete.

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 sentences, 15 words, no fluff. Efficiently communicates core functionality.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool but lacks important details: no specification of return type/value, no error behavior, no guidance on when to use validate. Missing output schema makes this gap more significant.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds 'optionally validate that the token exists' but mostly repeats schema info. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it retrieves the full URL for a webhook token, with optional validation. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_webhook or get_webhook_info.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_webhook_info or check_for_callbacks. Lacks context about prerequisites or when validation is appropriate.

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