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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond those annotations: signing secrets are never returned (shown once at creation only), results carry global event lists, and 'llmContext guidance included in results' should be followed. No contradiction with the read-only annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, the second sentence adds a security-relevant behavioral warning, and the third gives a concrete follow-up directive about llmContext. There is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 list tool with full annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), 100% schema coverage across 6 parameters, and an output schema present, the description adds exactly what structured fields cannot: family grouping, the secrets-never-returned behavior, and the llmContext follow-up rule. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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%, and the schema's parameter descriptions are already rich: environment pins to get_me, workspaceId must be a granted workspace listed by get_me, limit/enum docs are explicit, and nextPageToken is described as an opaque cursor. The prose description adds only marginal workspace-scope context ('the workspace's'), 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the workspace's webhook endpoints,' with explicit scope ('the workspace's') and what is included ('with their global event lists (webhooks group)'). The resource name 'endpoints' plus the group parenthetical cleanly distinguishes it from sister tools like list_webhook_subscriptions, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 provides clear context — it operates on webhook endpoints within the webhooks group and clarifies a key behavioral boundary: signing secrets are never available here, only at creation time, which implicitly routes agents to create_webhook_endpoint for that need. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states a when-not-to-use condition, stopping short of a 5.

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