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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema information: the webhook URLs are secrets and are deliberately not returned, so the agent knows the payload is redacted and where the URLs actually live. That is useful behavioral disclosure beyond the 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the resource definition comes first and the URL-secrecy caveat second. Every clause carries information the agent would otherwise lack.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (webhooks plus state) and what is not (URLs), which is the key gap an agent could stumble on. It could still note whether the list is scoped to a notebook or app, but the essentials are present.

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?

There is exactly one optional parameter (app_id), and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage, including the fallback behavior when omitted. The description adds nothing about scoping or the app_id, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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 names a specific resource — 'the ingest webhooks that let an external system add files to a notebook' — and states the returned scope ('with their state'), which distinguishes it from sibling knowledge tools like add_knowledge_document or set_knowledge_webhook_enabled. It omits an explicit verb such as 'list', leaving the name to carry that, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against siblings such as set_knowledge_webhook_enabled. The line about URLs being shown only on the Brain screen implicitly steers the agent away from expecting this tool to reveal webhook endpoints, which is a partial exclusion, but the agent must infer the rest.

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