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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned fields: key, active revision, and pipelines using the endpoint. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for this simple zero-parameter list the extra return-content disclosure is meaningful.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The resource is named first and the returned fields follow immediately.

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 read-only, zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the resource is and what fields the list includes. Only pagination and completeness of the result set are left unspecified.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema cannot carry parameter semantics and the description does not need to explain any. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 and resource ("List webhook endpoints") and explains the endpoint concept as URLs a pipeline's webhook block can ask for an outcome. It also names the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish this listing tool from siblings like get_webhook_endpoint or list_webhook_endpoint_uses.

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 list semantics imply usage when an agent needs an inventory of webhook endpoints. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as get_webhook_endpoint for details or list_webhook_endpoint_uses for usage relationships.

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