Get webhook

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: the webhook secret is never included in the response and is only available at creation or regeneration. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set correct expectations.

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 with no waste: the first states the core operation, and the second adds a single high-value caveat about the secret. Everything included 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the most important response behavior. It does not enumerate exact returned fields, but with no output schema and a simple get operation, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage for webhookId, including where it comes from ('returned when the webhook was created'). The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but none is necessary given the 100% schema coverage.

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 precise action ('Retrieve the details') and a specific resource ('a single webhook'), clearly identifying this as a get-detail operation distinct from list, create, update, delete, and regenerate webhook siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the singular scope is enough for an agent to differentiate.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative such as mail_listWebhooksV1. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should only be used with an already-known webhookId.

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