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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the hasMore semantic and the recommendation to prefer filters over pagination, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states purpose and filters; the second gives pagination guidance. The purpose is front-loaded and every clause 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?

For a list operation with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the resource scope, filters, and pagination behavior. It does not mention error cases or required parameters, but those are documented in the schema. The guidance about preferring filters is a notable positive.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a small clarification that the resourceId filter targets the 'webhooks group,' but otherwise does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states 'List resource-scoped webhook subscriptions' and specifies the two filtering dimensions (endpoint or watched resource). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_webhook_endpoints by explicitly calling out 'resource-scoped' and the filter options, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 concrete usage guidance on pagination: 'prefer narrowing filters over paginating, and pass nextPageToken only when every item is needed.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when to use this over list_webhook_endpoints, but the filtering guidance is actionable and implies when to use this tool.

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