get_webhook_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It conveys a read-only inspection behavior through 'Show' and the validity-check use case, but it does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or side-effect guarantees. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool shows, and the second gives the trigger scenario. Every sentence 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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It covers purpose, usage trigger, and the read-only nature, making it complete for tool selection and invocation.

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 only parameter is already documented as the 'Webhook UUID returned by create_webhook.' The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Show' and enumerates exactly what is returned: webhook settings, expiry, and request count. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_webhook_requests, get_webhook_url, or create_webhook.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when the user asks if a token is still valid or how it is configured,' providing clear trigger conditions. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the use case is concrete enough for an agent to select it.

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