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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the detail that it returns event keys and labels, which gives a bit more insight into the output, though it doesn't deeply elaborate on formatting or side effects. Overall, it is transparent enough.

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 concise, only two sentences, with no unnecessary wording. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and key behavioral aspects.

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 listing tool with no parameters and no declared output schema, the description provides enough context: what it returns, when to use it, and that it is read-only. No crucial information appears to be missing.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The description does not need to explain parameters but the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and it does not contradict or confuse.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists webhook events, event names, or callback triggers, and specifies it returns supported event keys and labels. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-webhook-subscriptions and list-webhook-logs.

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?

Explicitly notes when to use it: when the user asks what webhook events are available before creating or editing a subscription. Also indicates it is read-only, reinforcing that it does not modify subscriptions, which guides tool selection.

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