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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that results are ordered newest first and include the active revision, which an agent needs in order to interpret the list correctly.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. Ordering and active-revision information are front-loaded, followed by the motivating use case.

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 one-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral facts: ordering and active revision. It does not discuss pagination or result size, but those gaps are minor for this tool's scope.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter endpoint_key is fully documented in the schema. The description implies that the key identifies the webhook endpoint whose revisions are listed, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing a webhook endpoint's revisions. It also specifies ordering (newest first) and that the active revision is included, which clearly distinguishes it from generic list or get operations and from other revision-list tools for other resources.

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 gives a clear use case: find a revision to roll back to. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_webhook_endpoint_revision for inspecting one revision or activate_webhook_endpoint_revision for activation, so it lacks full when-not guidance, but the intended context is clear.

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