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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds context about 'masked' and 'delivery metadata', indicating that endpoints are not fully revealed, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination or response format, but with an output schema present, that may be acceptable. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action 'List' and the key qualifiers 'masked' and 'delivery metadata', making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It could benefit from indicating whether the list is paginated or if there are any limits, but that is likely covered by the output schema. The description is sufficiently complete for a straightforward listing operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so the description does not need to explain parameters. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description appropriately focuses on the output content.

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 'List masked registered webhook endpoints and delivery metadata' clearly states the action verb 'List' and the resource 'webhook endpoints' plus the key qualifier 'masked' and 'delivery metadata', distinguishing it from sibling webhook-related tool like auraspay_webhook_secret_info. It is specific and informative, though it could be more explicit about being for the 'webhooks' domain, which is already in the name.

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 implies usage for listing webhook endpoints, which is a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like auraspay_webhook_secret_info. Given the sibling named 'auraspay_webhook_secret_info', more guidance on distinguishing them would be useful, but the description's mention of 'masked' hints at a security-focused view vs. secret info.

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