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

Given no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly lists the returned fields, explains the secretPreview behavior (full secret only at create/rotate), and states the permission requirement (any org member). This goes beyond a simple 'list' and provides valuable context.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only actionable details. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function, usage, or caveats.

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 simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return fields, permission, and suggests a use case, leaving no critical gaps.

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%, with a detailed description of org_slug that already explains org-scoping and workspace behavior. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the tool lists webhook endpoints registered on an org, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_webhook, update_webhook, and delete_webhook by focusing on the read-only listing operation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use to audit what's subscribed before adding or removing endpoints.' It also notes that any org member can list, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, stopping short of a 5.

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