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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds no additional behavioral disclosure such as pagination, auth requirements, or side effects. It only repeats the scope, which is more of a purpose detail than behavioral context. Thus, it adds no value beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with zero waste. The action and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 list read with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. Annotations cover the read-only nature, and the schema covers the required parameter. However, it does not mention response format or pagination, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap. It also doesn't explicitly note the need to provide a company id, though that is in the schema.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema (description: 'Company id') with 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 verb (List), resource (webhook subscriptions), and scope (company-scoped). It distinguishes itself from the sibling hires_list_job_webhooks by specifying the company scope, which allows an agent to tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 by indicating the tool is for company-scoped webhooks, which implies use when company webhooks are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'use hires_list_job_webhooks for job webhooks'). The scope is clear but exclusions/alternatives are left implicit.

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