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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: the returned URL is a bearer secret for unattended trading, must be treated like a password, and can be rotated from /account/hooks/. This security disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know that is not visible in 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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes only essential context: the alert destination relationship, the related tools, and the security warning. Each sentence earns its place, and the length is justified by the important caveats.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the token requirement, and the security sensitivity. It could specify output format or additional returned fields, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema's token description already covers what the parameter is, where to generate it, and when to omit it. The tool description's requirement for a token adds no new detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific action 'List your Autoview webhook URLs' and identifies the resource and the destination for an alert's webhook field. It distinguishes the tool by noting it requires no further configuration on the Autoview side and refers to sibling tools alert and command.

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 clearly sets the context for use: this tool lists existing webhook URLs and suggests pairing with `command` or using `alert` to build both at once. It names the alternatives but does not explicitly explain when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not breakdown.

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