get_webhook_dns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Return') and mentions 'existing webhook,' but does not disclose potential errors, side effects, or authentication requirements. It is not misleading, but it is minimal; for a simple getter this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences with the main purpose first. Every sentence adds value, clearly distinguishing usage and providing an alternative. No wasted words.

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 simple getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and alternative. It does not mention the validate parameter, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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 50% (webhook_token is described, validate is not). The description does not elaborate on either parameter, leaving validate's purpose unclear. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 the tool's action: 'Return the DNSHook domain for an existing webhook.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from related tools like get_webhook_email and notes that create_webhook already returns dns, providing a clear scope and purpose.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use for out-of-band DNS callbacks, not for sign-up email.' It also points to an alternative (create_webhook already returns dns), making it clear when to use this tool versus others.

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