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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the authentication requirement and detailing the output fields, including the enum for last fire verdict (ok | partial | error | skipped_budget). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss pagination or error handling—minor gaps for a simple list operation.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the field list and the auth requirement. Every word adds value, and the structure is efficient for an agent scanning quickly.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns—and it does, listing all expected fields and the verdict enum. The auth requirement is also included. For a read-only list tool with no parameters, this is complete: an agent knows exactly what to expect and what precondition must be met.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing to compensate for since no parameters exist.

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 ('List') and resource ('webhook triggers'), and enumerates the returned fields (secret hook URL, bound rig, enabled state, fire count, last fire verdict). This clearly distinguishes it from hook_create, hook_delete, hook_pause, etc. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool—to list your webhook triggers—and adds a prerequisite ('Requires a logged-in identity'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the operation is self-explanatory and sibling tools (hook_create, hook_delete, hook_pause) are distinct enough that an agent can infer when this is appropriate. Missing explicit exclusions, hence not a 5.

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