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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds meaning beyond that by defining each counter's semantics (total = active subscriptions, max = per-workspace cap, agentManaged = subset created via API keys) and the authorization scope `webhooks:read`. It also discloses the downstream failure behavior when the cap is reached.

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 return shape is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by field definitions, the motivating usage note, and the auth scope — each sentence adds distinct information with no repetition. Dense but well-ordered for a tool this small.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the returned object's fields and their meaning, and it covers the pre-condition for the related write tool plus the required API-key scope. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the account and workspace parameters are fully documented in the schema itself, including multi-account failure behavior and workspace override semantics. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (report) and resource (webhook quota) for the current workspace, then enumerates the exact returned fields { userManaged, agentManaged, total, max }. This clearly distinguishes it from pm_get_webhook (single webhook detail) and pm_list_webhooks (enumeration), so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Check this before calling pm_create_webhook in bulk — creation fails once total reaches max.' That names the sibling tool and the failure mode that motivates calling this one first, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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