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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: secrets are never returned (data-exposure behavior), the disabled-after-failed-deliveries state and consecutive-failure count are surfaced, and access is restricted to owners/admins (auth requirement). These are exactly the behavioral disclosures the annotations do not carry.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then the returned fields, then the two key constraints (no secrets, admins only). Zero filler; 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields and states returned. Combined with the annotation safety profile and permission gating, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this read tool correctly.

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?

Only one optional parameter (workspace_id) and its schema description is fully detailed at 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'in this workspace' phrasing mildly reinforces scope but adds no new parameter detail, 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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (webhooks), scope (this workspace), and even enumerates the returned fields (address, events, active/disabled state, failure count). An agent can immediately tell this apart from register_webhook and delete_webhook without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing verb and the 'Workspace owners and admins only' audience constraint, which does gate use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as register_webhook/delete_webhook or when to prefer a filtered query.

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