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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: only enabled webhooks receive deliveries, and page-scoped queries include inherited site-level webhooks. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, all purposeful. The first sentence states the core operation and scope; the second adds an important delivery condition; the third explains inherited behavior and a likely use case. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 a read-only annotation, a full output schema, and 100% schema coverage for both parameters, the description completes the picture by explaining scope options, inheritance, and enabled-webhook behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 input schema already documents pageId and siteId with full descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic meaning by explaining the inheritance behavior for pageId queries and clarifying that siteId is the broader coverage choice, which enriches the schema's 'Give this or siteId' guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('webhook URLs that captured leads are forwarded to'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling mutators like add_webhook and remove_webhook by focusing on listing existing webhooks with page/site scoping.

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?

Clear guidance is given for choosing between pageId and siteId, including that siteId is 'usually the right choice for a CRM or automation'. The description also adds practical context about inherited site-level webhooks and why someone would ask this ('why are my leads going there'). No explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, but the usage context is strong.

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