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 real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest-first and include which revision is currently active — return-content detail the annotations do not convey.

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 zero filler; the scoping/ordering detail is front-loaded and the use case follows. 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?

For a single-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (revisions, newest-first, active one) and why to call it. It omits pagination/result-limit behavior, which is the only notable gap.

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% and the single parameter endpoint_key is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the resource the key identifies and adds no format, prefix, or lookup 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (a webhook endpoint's revisions), plus scope details: ordering ('newest first') and the active flag. This is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling get_webhook_endpoint_revision and from the other list_*_revisions tools by resource.

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?

'Use it to find a revision to roll back to' gives a concrete use case and implicitly routes to activate_webhook_endpoint_revision. It does not name the alternative tool or state when NOT to use this one (e.g., when you already know the revision key and should call get_webhook_endpoint_revision), so it stops 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.